Congressional Record, Volume 165 Issue 93 (Tuesday, June 4, 2019)

[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 93 (Tuesday, June 4, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H4265-H4291]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

AMERICAN DREAM AND PROMISE ACT OF 2019

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 415, I call
up the bill (H.R. 6) to authorize the cancellation of removal and
adjustment of status of certain aliens, and for other purposes, and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 415, the
amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules
Committee Print 116-16, modified by the amendment printed in House
Report 116-102, is adopted, and the bill, as amended, is considered
read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

H.R. 6

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled.

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``American
Dream and Promise Act of 2019''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

TITLE I--DREAM ACT

Sec. 101. Short title.

Subtitle A--Treatment of Certain Long-term Residents Who Entered the
United States as Children

Sec. 111. Permanent resident status on a conditional basis for certain
long-term residents who entered the United States as
children.
Sec. 112. Terms of permanent resident status on a conditional basis.
Sec. 113. Removal of conditional basis of permanent resident status.

Subtitle B--General Provisions

Sec. 121. Definitions.
Sec. 122. Submission of biometric and biographic data; background
checks.
Sec. 123. Limitation on removal; application and fee exemption; waiver
of grounds for inadmissibility and other conditions on
eligible individuals.
Sec. 124. Determination of continuous presence and residence.
Sec. 125. Exemption from numerical limitations.
Sec. 126. Availability of administrative and judicial review.
Sec. 127. Documentation requirements.
Sec. 128. Rule making.
Sec. 129. Confidentiality of information.
Sec. 130. Grant program to assist eligible applicants.
Sec. 131. Provisions affecting eligibility for adjustment of status.
Sec. 132. Supplementary surcharge for appointed counsel.
Sec. 133. Annual report on provisional denial authority.

TITLE II--AMERICAN PROMISE ACT

Sec. 201. Short title.

Subtitle A--Treatment of Certain Nationals of Certain Countries
Designated for Temporary Protected Status or Deferred Enforced
Departure

Sec. 211. Adjustment of status for certain nationals of certain
countries designated for temporary protected status or
deferred enforced departure.

Subtitle B--General Provisions

Sec. 221. Definitions.
Sec. 222. Submission of biometric and biographic data; background
checks.
Sec. 223. Limitation on removal; application and fee exemption; waiver
of grounds for inadmissibility and other conditions on
eligible individuals.
Sec. 224. Determination of continuous presence.
Sec. 225. Exemption from numerical limitations.
Sec. 226. Availability of administrative and judicial review.
Sec. 227. Documentation requirements.
Sec. 228. Rule making.
Sec. 229. Confidentiality of information.
Sec. 230. Grant program to assist eligible applicants.
Sec. 231. Provisions affecting eligibility for adjustment of status.

TITLE I--DREAM ACT

SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Dream Act of 2019''.

Subtitle A--Treatment of Certain Long-term Residents Who Entered the
United States as Children

SEC. 111. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS ON A CONDITIONAL BASIS
FOR CERTAIN LONG-TERM RESIDENTS WHO ENTERED THE
UNITED STATES AS CHILDREN.

(a) Conditional Basis for Status.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, and except as provided in section
113(c)(2), an alien shall be considered, at the time of
obtaining the status of an alien lawfully admitted for
permanent residence under this section, to have obtained such
status on a conditional basis subject to the provisions of
this title.
(b) Requirements.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the Secretary or the Attorney General shall cancel the
removal of, and adjust to the status of an alien lawfully
admitted for permanent residence on a conditional basis, or
without the conditional basis as provided in section
113(c)(2), an alien who is inadmissible or deportable from
the United States (or is under a grant of Deferred Enforced
Departure or has temporary protected status under section 244
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1254a)) if--
(A) the alien has been continuously physically present in
the United States since the date that is 4 years before the
date of the enactment of this Act;
(B) the alien was younger than 18 years of age on the date
on which the alien entered the

[[Page H4266]]

United States and has continuously resided in the United
States since such entry;
(C) the alien--
(i) subject to section 123(d), is not inadmissible under
paragraph (1), (6)(E), (6)(G), (8), or (10) of section 212(a)
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a));
(ii) has not ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise
participated in the persecution of any person on account of
race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular
social group, or political opinion; and
(iii) is not barred from adjustment of status under this
title based on the criminal and national security grounds
described under subsection (c), subject to the provisions of
such subsection; and
(D) the alien--
(i) has been admitted to an institution of higher
education;
(ii) has been admitted to an area career and technical
education school at the postsecondary level;
(iii) in the United States, has obtained--

(I) a high school diploma or a commensurate alternative
award from a public or private high school;
(II) a General Education Development credential, a high
school equivalency diploma recognized under State law, or
another similar State-authorized credential;
(III) a credential or certificate from an area career and
technical education school at the secondary level; or
(IV) a recognized postsecondary credential; or

(iv) is enrolled in secondary school or in an education
program assisting students in--

(I) obtaining a high school diploma or its recognized
equivalent under State law;
(II) passing the General Education Development test, a high
school equivalence diploma examination, or other similar
State-authorized exam;
(III) obtaining a certificate or credential from an area
career and technical education school providing education at
the secondary level; or
(IV) obtaining a recognized postsecondary credential.

(2) Application fee.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary may, subject to an exemption
under section 123(c), require an alien applying under this
section to pay a reasonable fee that is commensurate with the
cost of processing the application but does not exceed
$495.00.
(B) Special procedure for applicants with daca.--The
Secretary shall establish a streamlined procedure for aliens
who have been granted DACA and who meet the requirements for
renewal (under the terms of the program in effect on January
1, 2017) to apply for cancellation of removal and adjustment
of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent
residence on a conditional basis under this section, or
without the conditional basis as provided in section
113(c)(2). Such procedure shall not include a requirement
that the applicant pay a fee, except that the Secretary may
require an applicant who meets the requirements for lawful
permanent residence without the conditional basis under
section 113(c)(2) to pay a fee that is commensurate with the
cost of processing the application, subject to the exemption
under section 123(c).
(3) Background checks.--The Secretary may not grant an
alien permanent resident status on a conditional basis under
this section until the requirements of section 122 are
satisfied.
(4) Military selective service.--An alien applying for
permanent resident status on a conditional basis under this
section, or without the conditional basis as provided in
section 113(c)(2), shall establish that the alien has
registered under the Military Selective Service Act (50
U.S.C. 3801 et seq.), if the alien is subject to registration
under such Act.
(c) Criminal and National Security Bars.--
(1) Grounds of ineligibility.--Except as provided in
paragraph (2), an alien is ineligible for adjustment of
status under this title (whether on a conditional basis or
without the conditional basis as provided in section
113(c)(2)) if any of the following apply:
(A) The alien is inadmissible under paragraph (2) or (3) of
section 212(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1182(a)).
(B) Excluding any offense under State law for which an
essential element is the alien's immigration status, and any
minor traffic offense, the alien has been convicted of--
(i) any felony offense;
(ii) 3 or more misdemeanor offenses (excluding simple
possession of cannabis or cannabis-related paraphernalia, any
offense involving cannabis or cannabis-related paraphernalia
which is no longer prosecutable in the State in which the
conviction was entered, and any offense involving civil
disobedience without violence) not occurring on the same
date, and not arising out of the same act, omission, or
scheme of misconduct; or
(iii) a misdemeanor offense of domestic violence, unless
the alien demonstrates that such crime is related to the
alien having been--

(I) a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault,
stalking, child abuse or neglect, abuse or neglect in later
life, or human trafficking;
(II) battered or subjected to extreme cruelty; or
(III) a victim of criminal activity described in section
101(a)(15)(U)(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(U)(iii)).

(2) Waivers for certain misdemeanors.--For humanitarian
purposes, family unity, or if otherwise in the public
interest, the Secretary may--
(A) waive the grounds of inadmissibility under
subparagraphs (A), (C), and (D) of section 212(a)(2) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)), unless
the conviction forming the basis for inadmissibility would
otherwise render the alien ineligible under paragraph (1)(B)
(subject to subparagraph (B)); and
(B) for purposes of clauses (ii) and (iii) of paragraph
(1)(B), waive consideration of--
(i) one misdemeanor offense if the alien has not been
convicted of any offense in the 5-year period preceding the
date on which the alien applies for adjustment of status
under this title; or
(ii) up to two misdemeanor offenses if the alien has not
been convicted of any offense in the 10-year period preceding
the date on which the alien applies for adjustment of status
under this title.
(3) Authority to conduct secondary review.--
(A) In general.--Notwithstanding an alien's eligibility for
adjustment of status under this title, and subject to the
procedures described in this paragraph, the Secretary of
Homeland Security may, as a matter of non-delegable
discretion, provisionally deny an application for adjustment
of status (whether on a conditional basis or without the
conditional basis as provided in section 113(c)(2)) if the
Secretary, based on clear and convincing evidence, which
shall include credible law enforcement information,
determines that the alien is described in subparagraph (B) or
(D).
(B) Public safety.--An alien is described in this
subparagraph if--
(i) excluding simple possession of cannabis or cannabis-
related paraphernalia, any offense involving cannabis or
cannabis-related paraphernalia which is no longer
prosecutable in the State in which the conviction was
entered, any offense under State law for which an essential
element is the alien's immigration status, any offense
involving civil disobedience without violence, and any minor
traffic offense, the alien--

(I) has been convicted of a misdemeanor offense punishable
by a term of imprisonment of more than 30 days; or
(II) has been adjudicated delinquent in a State or local
juvenile court proceeding that resulted in a disposition
ordering placement in a secure facility; and

(ii) the alien poses a significant and continuing threat to
public safety related to such conviction or adjudication.
(C) Public safety determination.--For purposes of
subparagraph (B)(ii), the Secretary shall consider the
recency of the conviction or adjudication; the length of any
imposed sentence or placement; the nature and seriousness of
the conviction or adjudication, including whether the
elements of the offense include the unlawful possession or
use of a deadly weapon to commit an offense or other conduct
intended to cause serious bodily injury; and any mitigating
factors pertaining to the alien's role in the commission of
the offense.
(D) Gang participation.--An alien is described in this
subparagraph if the alien has, within the 5 years immediately
preceding the date of the application, knowingly, willfully,
and voluntarily participated in offenses committed by a
criminal street gang (as described in subsections (a) and (c)
of section 521 of title 18, United States Code) with the
intent to promote or further the commission of such offenses.
(E) Evidentiary limitation.--For purposes of subparagraph
(D), allegations of gang membership obtained from a State or
Federal in-house or local database, or a network of databases
used for the purpose of recording and sharing activities of
alleged gang members across law enforcement agencies, shall
not establish the participation described in such paragraph.
(F) Notice.--
(i) In general.--Prior to rendering a discretionary
decision under this paragraph, the Secretary of Homeland
Security shall provide written notice of the intent to
provisionally deny the application to the alien (or the
alien's counsel of record, if any) by certified mail and, if
an electronic mail address is provided, by electronic mail
(or other form of electronic communication). Such notice
shall--

(I) articulate with specificity all grounds for the
preliminary determination, including the evidence relied upon
to support the determination; and
(II) provide the alien with not less than 90 days to
respond.

(ii) Second notice.--Not more than 30 days after the
issuance of the notice under clause (i), the Secretary of
Homeland Security shall provide a second written notice that
meets the requirements of such clause.
(iii) Notice not received.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, if an applicant provides good cause for not
contesting a provisional denial under this paragraph,
including a failure to receive notice as required under this
subparagraph, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall, upon
a motion filed by the alien, reopen an application for
adjustment of status under this title and allow the applicant
an opportunity to respond, consistent with clause (i)(II).
(G) Judicial review.--An alien is entitled to judicial
review of the Secretary's decision to provisionally deny an
application under this paragraph in accordance with the
procedures described in section 126(c).
(4) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection--
(A) the term ``felony offense'' means an offense under
Federal or State law that is punishable by a maximum term of
imprisonment of more than 1 year;
(B) the term ``misdemeanor offense'' means an offense under
Federal or State law that is punishable by a term of
imprisonment of more than 5 days but not more than 1 year;
(C) the term ``crime of domestic violence'' means any
offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or
threatened use of physical force against a person committed
by a current or former spouse of the person, by an individual
with whom the person shares a child in common, by an
individual who is cohabiting with or has cohabited with the
person as a spouse, by an individual similarly situated to a

[[Page H4267]]

spouse of the person under the domestic or family violence
laws of the jurisdiction where the offense occurs, or by any
other individual against a person who is protected from that
individual's acts under the domestic or family violence laws
of the United States or any State, Indian tribal government,
or unit of local government; and
(D) the term `convicted', `conviction', `adjudicated', or
`adjudication' does not include a judgment that has been
expunged or set aside, that resulted in a rehabilitative
disposition, or the equivalent.
(d) Limitation on Removal of Certain Alien Minors.--An
alien who is under 18 years of age and meets the requirements
under subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of subsection (b)(1)
shall be provided a reasonable opportunity to meet the
educational requirements under subparagraph (D) of such
subsection. The Attorney General or the Secretary may not
commence or continue with removal proceedings against such an
alien.
(e) Withdrawal of Application.--The Secretary of Homeland
Security shall, upon receipt of a request to withdraw an
application for adjustment of status under this section,
cease processing of the application, and close the case.
Withdrawal of the application under this subsection shall not
prejudice any future application filed by the applicant for
any immigration benefit under this title or under the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.).

SEC. 112. TERMS OF PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS ON A CONDITIONAL
BASIS.

(a) Period of Status.--Permanent resident status on a
conditional basis is--
(1) valid for a period of 10 years, unless such period is
extended by the Secretary; and
(2) subject to revocation under subsection (c).
(b) Notice of Requirements.--At the time an alien obtains
permanent resident status on a conditional basis, the
Secretary shall provide notice to the alien regarding the
provisions of this title and the requirements to have the
conditional basis of such status removed.
(c) Revocation of Status.--The Secretary may revoke the
permanent resident status on a conditional basis of an alien
only if the Secretary--
(1) determines that the alien ceases to meet the
requirements under section 111(b)(1)(C); and
(2) prior to the revocation, provides the alien--
(A) notice of the proposed revocation; and
(B) the opportunity for a hearing to provide evidence that
the alien meets such requirements or otherwise to contest the
proposed revocation.
(d) Return to Previous Immigration Status.--An alien whose
permanent resident status on a conditional basis expires
under subsection (a)(1) or is revoked under subsection (c),
shall return to the immigration status that the alien had
immediately before receiving permanent resident status on a
conditional basis.

SEC. 113. REMOVAL OF CONDITIONAL BASIS OF PERMANENT RESIDENT
STATUS.

(a) Eligibility for Removal of Conditional Basis.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary
shall remove the conditional basis of an alien's permanent
resident status granted under this title and grant the alien
status as an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence
if the alien--
(A) is described in section 111(b)(1)(C);
(B) has not abandoned the alien's residence in the United
States during the period in which the alien has permanent
resident status on a conditional basis; and
(C)(i) has obtained a degree from an institution of higher
education, or has completed at least 2 years, in good
standing, of a program in the United States leading to a
bachelor's degree or higher degree or a recognized
postsecondary credential from an area career and technical
education school providing education at the postsecondary
level;
(ii) has served in the Uniformed Services for at least 2
years and, if discharged, received an honorable discharge; or
(iii) demonstrates earned income for periods totaling at
least 3 years and at least 75 percent of the time that the
alien has had a valid employment authorization, except that,
in the case of an alien who was enrolled in an institution of
higher education, an area career and technical education
school to obtain a recognized postsecondary credential, or an
education program described in section 111(b)(1)(D)(iii), the
Secretary shall reduce such total 3-year requirement by the
total of such periods of enrollment.
(2) Hardship exception.--The Secretary shall remove the
conditional basis of an alien's permanent resident status and
grant the alien status as an alien lawfully admitted for
permanent residence if the alien--
(A) satisfies the requirements under subparagraphs (A) and
(B) of paragraph (1);
(B) demonstrates compelling circumstances for the inability
to satisfy the requirements under subparagraph (C) of such
paragraph; and
(C) demonstrates that--
(i) the alien has a disability;
(ii) the alien is a full-time caregiver; or
(iii) the removal of the alien from the United States would
result in hardship to the alien or the alien's spouse,
parent, or child who is a national of the United States or is
lawfully admitted for permanent residence.
(3) Citizenship requirement.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
the conditional basis of an alien's permanent resident status
granted under this title may not be removed unless the alien
demonstrates that the alien satisfies the requirements under
section 312(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1423(a)).
(B) Exception.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to an
alien who is unable to meet the requirements under such
section 312(a) due to disability.
(4) Application fee.--The Secretary may, subject to an
exemption under section 123(c), require aliens applying for
removal of the conditional basis of an alien's permanent
resident status under this section to pay a reasonable fee
that is commensurate with the cost of processing the
application.
(5) Background check.--The Secretary may not remove the
conditional basis of an alien's permanent resident status
until the requirements of section 122 are satisfied.
(b) Treatment for Purposes of Naturalization.--
(1) In general.--For purposes of title III of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), an
alien granted permanent resident status on a conditional
basis shall be considered to have been admitted to the United
States, and be present in the United States, as an alien
lawfully admitted for permanent residence.
(2) Limitation on application for naturalization.--An alien
may not apply for naturalization while the alien is in
permanent resident status on a conditional basis.
(c) Timing of Approval of Lawful Permanent Resident
Status.--
(1) In general.--An alien granted permanent resident status
on a conditional basis under this title may apply to have
such conditional basis removed at any time after such alien
has met the eligibility requirements set forth in subsection
(a).
(2) Approval with regard to initial applications.--
(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the Secretary or the Attorney General shall cancel the
removal of, and adjust to the status of an alien lawfully
admitted for permanent resident status without conditional
basis, any alien who--
(i) demonstrates eligibility for lawful permanent residence
status on a conditional basis under section 111(b); and
(ii) subject to the exceptions described in subsections
(a)(2) and (a)(3)(B) of this section, already has fulfilled
the requirements of paragraphs (1) and (3) of subsection (a)
of this section at the time such alien first submits an
application for benefits under this title.
(B) Background checks.--Subsection (a)(5) shall apply to an
alien seeking lawful permanent resident status without
conditional basis in an initial application in the same
manner as it applies to an alien seeking removal of the
conditional basis of an alien's permanent resident status.
Section 111(b)(3) shall not be construed to require the
Secretary to conduct more than one identical security or law
enforcement background check on such an alien.
(C) Application fees.--In the case of an alien seeking
lawful permanent resident status without conditional basis in
an initial application, the alien shall pay the fee required
under subsection (a)(4), subject to the exemption allowed
under section 123(c), but shall not be required to pay the
application fee under section 111(b)(2).

Subtitle B--General Provisions

SEC. 121. DEFINITIONS.

In this title:
(1) In general.--Except as otherwise specifically provided,
any term used in this title that is used in the immigration
laws shall have the meaning given such term in the
immigration laws.
(2) Appropriate united states district court.--The term
``appropriate United States district court'' mean the United
States District Court for the District of Columbia or the
United States district court with jurisdiction over the
alien's principal place of residence.
(3) Area career and technical education school.--The term
``area career and technical education school'' has the
meaning given such term in section 3 of the Carl D. Perkins
Career and Technical Education Act of 2006 (20 U.S.C. 2302).
(4) DACA.--The term ``DACA'' means deferred action granted
to an alien pursuant to the Deferred Action for Childhood
Arrivals policy announced by the Secretary of Homeland
Security on June 15, 2012.
(5) Disability.--The term ``disability'' has the meaning
given such term in section 3(1) of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12102(1)).
(6) Federal poverty line.--The term ``Federal poverty
line'' has the meaning given such term in section 213A(h) of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1183a).
(7) High school; secondary school.--The terms ``high
school'' and ``secondary school'' have the meanings given
such terms in section 8101 of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801).
(8) Immigration laws.--The term ``immigration laws'' has
the meaning given such term in section 101(a)(17) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(17)).
(9) Institution of higher education.--The term
``institution of higher education''--
(A) except as provided in subparagraph (B), has the meaning
given such term in section 102 of the Higher Education Act of
1965 (20 U.S.C. 1002); and
(B) does not include an institution of higher education
outside of the United States.
(10) Recognized postsecondary credential.--The term
``recognized postsecondary credential'' has the meaning given
such term in section 3 of the Workforce Innovation and
Opportunity Act (29 U.S.C. 3102).
(11) Secretary.--Except as otherwise specifically provided,
the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Homeland
Security.
(12) Uniformed services.--The term ``Uniformed Services''
has the meaning given the term ``uniformed services'' in
section 101(a) of title 10, United States Code.

[[Page H4268]]

SEC. 122. SUBMISSION OF BIOMETRIC AND BIOGRAPHIC DATA;
BACKGROUND CHECKS.

(a) Submission of Biometric and Biographic Data.--The
Secretary may not grant an alien adjustment of status under
this title, on either a conditional or permanent basis,
unless the alien submits biometric and biographic data, in
accordance with procedures established by the Secretary. The
Secretary shall provide an alternative procedure for aliens
who are unable to provide such biometric or biographic data
because of a physical impairment.
(b) Background Checks.--The Secretary shall use biometric,
biographic, and other data that the Secretary determines
appropriate to conduct security and law enforcement
background checks and to determine whether there is any
criminal, national security, or other factor that would
render the alien ineligible for adjustment of status under
this title, on either a conditional or permanent basis. The
status of an alien may not be adjusted, on either a
conditional or permanent basis, unless security and law
enforcement background checks are completed to the
satisfaction of the Secretary.

SEC. 123. LIMITATION ON REMOVAL; APPLICATION AND FEE
EXEMPTION; WAIVER OF GROUNDS FOR
INADMISSIBILITY AND OTHER CONDITIONS ON
ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS.

(a) Limitation on Removal.--An alien who appears to be
prima facie eligible for relief under this title shall be
given a reasonable opportunity to apply for such relief and
may not be removed until, subject to section 126(c), a final
decision establishing ineligibility for relief is rendered.
(b) Application.--An alien present in the United States who
has been ordered removed or has been permitted to depart
voluntarily from the United States may, notwithstanding such
order or permission to depart, apply for adjustment of status
under this title. Such alien shall not be required to file a
separate motion to reopen, reconsider, or vacate the order of
removal. If the Secretary approves the application, the
Secretary shall cancel the order of removal. If the Secretary
renders a final administrative decision to deny the
application, the order of removal or permission to depart
shall be effective and enforceable to the same extent as if
the application had not been made, only after all available
administrative and judicial remedies have been exhausted.
(c) Fee Exemption.--An applicant may be exempted from
paying an application fee required under this title if the
applicant--
(1) is younger than 18 years of age;
(2) received total income, during the 12-month period
immediately preceding the date on which the applicant files
an application under this title, that is less than 150
percent of the Federal poverty line;
(3) is in foster care or otherwise lacks any parental or
other familial support; or
(4) cannot care for himself or herself because of a
serious, chronic disability.
(d) Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility.--With respect to
any benefit under this title, and in addition to the waivers
under section 111(c)(2), the Secretary may waive the grounds
of inadmissibility under paragraph (1), (6)(E), (6)(G), or
(10)(D) of section 212(a) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)) for humanitarian purposes, for family
unity, or because the waiver is otherwise in the public
interest.
(e) Advance Parole.--During the period beginning on the
date on which an alien applies for adjustment of status under
this title and ending on the date on which the Secretary
makes a final decision regarding such application, the alien
shall be eligible to apply for advance parole. Section 101(g)
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(g))
shall not apply to an alien granted advance parole under this
section.
(f) Employment.--An alien whose removal is stayed pursuant
to this title, who may not be placed in removal proceedings
pursuant to this title, or who has pending an application
under this title, shall, upon application to the Secretary,
be granted an employment authorization document.

SEC. 124. DETERMINATION OF CONTINUOUS PRESENCE AND RESIDENCE.

(a) Effect of Notice to Appear.--Any period of continuous
physical presence or continuous residence in the United
States of an alien who applies for permanent resident status
under this title (whether on a conditional basis or without
the conditional basis as provided in section 113(c)(2)) shall
not terminate when the alien is served a notice to appear
under section 239(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(8 U.S.C. 1229(a)).
(b) Treatment of Certain Breaks in Presence or Residence.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and
(3), an alien shall be considered to have failed to
maintain--
(A) continuous physical presence in the United States under
this title if the alien has departed from the United States
for any period exceeding 90 days or for any periods, in the
aggregate, exceeding 180 days; and
(B) continuous residence in the United States under this
title if the alien has departed from the United States for
any period exceeding 180 days, unless the alien establishes
to the satisfaction of the Secretary of Homeland Security
that the alien did not in fact abandon residence in the
United States during such period.
(2) Extensions for extenuating circumstances.--The
Secretary may extend the time periods described in paragraph
(1) for an alien who demonstrates that the failure to timely
return to the United States was due to extenuating
circumstances beyond the alien's control, including the
serious illness of the alien, or death or serious illness of
a parent, grandparent, sibling, or child of the alien.
(3) Travel authorized by the secretary.--Any period of
travel outside of the United States by an alien that was
authorized by the Secretary may not be counted toward any
period of departure from the United States under paragraph
(1).
(c) Waiver of Physical Presence.--With respect to aliens
who were removed or departed the United States on or after
January 20, 2017, and who were continuously physically
present in the United States for at least 4 years prior to
such removal or departure, the Secretary may, as a matter of
discretion, waive the physical presence requirement under
section 111(b)(1)(A) for humanitarian purposes, for family
unity, or because a waiver is otherwise in the public
interest. The Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary
of State, shall establish a procedure for such aliens to
apply for relief under section 111 from outside the United
States if they would have been eligible for relief under such
section, but for their removal or departure.

SEC. 125. EXEMPTION FROM NUMERICAL LIMITATIONS.

Nothing in this title or in any other law may be construed
to apply a numerical limitation on the number of aliens who
may be granted permanent resident status under this title
(whether on a conditional basis, or without the conditional
basis as provided in section 113(c)(2)).

SEC. 126. AVAILABILITY OF ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL REVIEW.

(a) Administrative Review.--Not later than 30 days after
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall
provide to aliens who have applied for adjustment of status
under this title a process by which an applicant may seek
administrative appellate review of a denial of an application
for adjustment of status, or a revocation of such status.
(b) Judicial Review.--Except as provided in subsection (c),
and notwithstanding any other provision of law, an alien may
seek judicial review of a denial of an application for
adjustment of status, or a revocation of such status, under
this title in an appropriate United States district court.
(c) Judicial Review of a Provisional Denial.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, if, after notice and the opportunity to respond under
section 111(c)(3)(E), the Secretary provisionally denies an
application for adjustment of status under this title, the
alien shall have 60 days from the date of the Secretary's
determination to seek review of such determination in an
appropriate United States district court.
(2) Scope of review and decision.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, review under paragraph (1) shall be
de novo and based solely on the administrative record, except
that the applicant shall be given the opportunity to
supplement the administrative record and the Secretary shall
be given the opportunity to rebut the evidence and arguments
raised in such submission. Upon issuing its decision, the
court shall remand the matter, with appropriate instructions,
to the Department of Homeland Security to render a final
decision on the application.
(3) Appointed counsel.--Notwithstanding any other provision
of law, an applicant seeking judicial review under paragraph
(1) shall be represented by counsel. Upon the request of the
applicant, counsel shall be appointed for the applicant, in
accordance with procedures to be established by the Attorney
General within 90 days of the date of the enactment of this
Act, and shall be funded in accordance with fees collected
and deposited in the Immigration Counsel Account under
section 132.
(d) Stay of Removal.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), an
alien seeking administrative or judicial review under this
title may not be removed from the United States until a final
decision is rendered establishing that the alien is
ineligible for adjustment of status under this title.
(2) Exception.--The Secretary may remove an alien described
in paragraph (1) pending judicial review if such removal is
based on criminal or national security grounds described in
this title. Such removal shall not affect the alien's right
to judicial review under this title. The Secretary shall
promptly return a removed alien if a decision to deny an
application for adjustment of status under this title, or to
revoke such status, is reversed.

SEC. 127. DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS.

(a) Documents Establishing Identity.--An alien's
application for permanent resident status under this title
(whether on a conditional basis, or without the conditional
basis as provided in section 113(c)(2)) may include, as
evidence of identity, the following:
(1) A passport or national identity document from the
alien's country of origin that includes the alien's name and
the alien's photograph or fingerprint.
(2) The alien's birth certificate and an identity card that
includes the alien's name and photograph.
(3) A school identification card that includes the alien's
name and photograph, and school records showing the alien's
name and that the alien is or was enrolled at the school.
(4) A Uniformed Services identification card issued by the
Department of Defense.
(5) Any immigration or other document issued by the United
States Government bearing the alien's name and photograph.
(6) A State-issued identification card bearing the alien's
name and photograph.
(7) Any other evidence determined to be credible by the
Secretary.
(b) Documents Establishing Entry, Continuous Physical
Presence, Lack of Abandonment of Residence.--To establish
that an alien was younger than 18 years of age on the date on
which the alien entered the United States, and

[[Page H4269]]

has continuously resided in the United States since such
entry, as required under section 111(b)(1)(B), that an alien
has been continuously physically present in the United
States, as required under section 111(b)(1)(A), or that an
alien has not abandoned residence in the United States, as
required under section 113(a)(1)(B), the alien may submit the
following forms of evidence:
(1) Passport entries, including admission stamps on the
alien's passport.
(2) Any document from the Department of Justice or the
Department of Homeland Security noting the alien's date of
entry into the United States.
(3) Records from any educational institution the alien has
attended in the United States.
(4) Employment records of the alien that include the
employer's name and contact information, or other records
demonstrating earned income.
(5) Records of service from the Uniformed Services.
(6) Official records from a religious entity confirming the
alien's participation in a religious ceremony.
(7) A birth certificate for a child who was born in the
United States.
(8) Hospital or medical records showing medical treatment
or hospitalization, the name of the medical facility or
physician, and the date of the treatment or hospitalization.
(9) Automobile license receipts or registration.
(10) Deeds, mortgages, or rental agreement contracts.
(11) Rent receipts or utility bills bearing the alien's
name or the name of an immediate family member of the alien,
and the alien's address.
(12) Tax receipts.
(13) Insurance policies.
(14) Remittance records, including copies of money order
receipts sent in or out of the country.
(15) Travel records.
(16) Dated bank transactions.
(17) Two or more sworn affidavits from individuals who are
not related to the alien who have direct knowledge of the
alien's continuous physical presence in the United States,
that contain--
(A) the name, address, and telephone number of the affiant;
and
(B) the nature and duration of the relationship between the
affiant and the alien.
(18) Any other evidence determined to be credible by the
Secretary.
(c) Documents Establishing Admission to an Institution of
Higher Education.--To establish that an alien has been
admitted to an institution of higher education, the alien may
submit to the Secretary a document from the institution of
higher education certifying that the alien--
(1) has been admitted to the institution; or
(2) is currently enrolled in the institution as a student.
(d) Documents Establishing Receipt of a Degree From an
Institution of Higher Education.--To establish that an alien
has acquired a degree from an institution of higher education
in the United States, the alien may submit to the Secretary a
diploma or other document from the institution stating that
the alien has received such a degree.
(e) Documents Establishing Receipt of a High School
Diploma, General Educational Development Credential, or a
Recognized Equivalent.--To establish that in the United
States an alien has earned a high school diploma or a
commensurate alternative award from a public or private high
school, has obtained the General Education Development
credential, or otherwise has satisfied section
111(b)(1)(D)(iii), the alien may submit to the Secretary the
following:
(1) A high school diploma, certificate of completion, or
other alternate award.
(2) A high school equivalency diploma or certificate
recognized under State law.
(3) Evidence that the alien passed a State-authorized exam,
including the General Education Development test, in the
United States.
(4) Evidence that the alien successfully completed an area
career and technical education program, such as a
certification, certificate, or similar alternate award.
(5) Evidence that the alien obtained a recognized
postsecondary credential.
(6) Any other evidence determined to be credible by the
Secretary.
(f) Documents Establishing Enrollment in an Educational
Program.--To establish that an alien is enrolled in any
school or education program described in section
111(b)(1)(D)(iv) or 113(a)(1)(C), the alien may submit school
records from the United States school that the alien is
currently attending that include--
(1) the name of the school; and
(2) the alien's name, periods of attendance, and current
grade or educational level.
(g) Documents Establishing Exemption From Application
Fees.--To establish that an alien is exempt from an
application fee under section 123(c), the alien may submit to
the Secretary the following relevant documents:
(1) Documents to establish age.--To establish that an alien
meets an age requirement, the alien may provide proof of
identity, as described in subsection (a), that establishes
that the alien is younger than 18 years of age.
(2) Documents to establish income.--To establish the
alien's income, the alien may provide--
(A) employment records or other records of earned income,
including records that have been maintained by the Social
Security Administration, the Internal Revenue Service, or any
other Federal, State, or local government agency;
(B) bank records; or
(C) at least 2 sworn affidavits from individuals who are
not related to the alien and who have direct knowledge of the
alien's work and income that contain--
(i) the name, address, and telephone number of the affiant;
and
(ii) the nature and duration of the relationship between
the affiant and the alien.
(3) Documents to establish foster care, lack of familial
support, or serious, chronic disability.--To establish that
the alien is in foster care, lacks parental or familial
support, or has a serious, chronic disability, the alien may
provide at least 2 sworn affidavits from individuals who are
not related to the alien and who have direct knowledge of the
circumstances that contain--
(A) a statement that the alien is in foster care, otherwise
lacks any parental or other familiar support, or has a
serious, chronic disability, as appropriate;
(B) the name, address, and telephone number of the affiant;
and
(C) the nature and duration of the relationship between the
affiant and the alien.
(h) Documents Establishing Qualification for Hardship
Exemption.--To establish that an alien satisfies one of the
criteria for the hardship exemption set forth in section
113(a)(2)(C), the alien may submit to the Secretary at least
2 sworn affidavits from individuals who are not related to
the alien and who have direct knowledge of the circumstances
that warrant the exemption, that contain--
(1) the name, address, and telephone number of the affiant;
and
(2) the nature and duration of the relationship between the
affiant and the alien.
(i) Documents Establishing Service in the Uniformed
Services.--To establish that an alien has served in the
Uniformed Services for at least 2 years and, if discharged,
received an honorable discharge, the alien may submit to the
Secretary--
(1) a Department of Defense form DD-214;
(2) a National Guard Report of Separation and Record of
Service form 22;
(3) personnel records for such service from the appropriate
Uniformed Service; or
(4) health records from the appropriate Uniformed Service.
(j) Documents Establishing Earned Income.--
(1) In general.--An alien may satisfy the earned income
requirement under section 113(a)(1)(C)(iii) by submitting
records that--
(A) establish compliance with such requirement; and
(B) have been maintained by the Social Security
Administration, the Internal Revenue Service, or any other
Federal, State, or local government agency.
(2) Other documents.--An alien who is unable to submit the
records described in paragraph (1) may satisfy the earned
income requirement by submitting at least 2 types of reliable
documents that provide evidence of employment or other forms
of earned income, including--
(A) bank records;
(B) business records;
(C) employer or contractor records;
(D) records of a labor union, day labor center, or
organization that assists workers in employment;
(E) sworn affidavits from individuals who are not related
to the alien and who have direct knowledge of the alien's
work, that contain--
(i) the name, address, and telephone number of the affiant;
and
(ii) the nature and duration of the relationship between
the affiant and the alien;
(F) remittance records; or
(G) any other evidence determined to be credible by the
Secretary.
(k) Authority to Prohibit Use of Certain Documents.--If the
Secretary determines, after publication in the Federal
Register and an opportunity for public comment, that any
document or class of documents does not reliably establish
identity or that permanent resident status under this title
(whether on a conditional basis, or without the conditional
basis as provided in section 113(c)(2)) is being obtained
fraudulently to an unacceptable degree, the Secretary may
prohibit or restrict the use of such document or class of
documents.

SEC. 128. RULE MAKING.

(a) In General.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall publish in the
Federal Register interim final rules implementing this title,
which shall allow eligible individuals to immediately apply
for relief under section 111 or 113(c)(2). Notwithstanding
section 553 of title 5, United States Code, the regulation
shall be effective, on an interim basis, immediately upon
publication, but may be subject to change and revision after
public notice and opportunity for a period of public comment.
The Secretary shall finalize such rules not later than 180
days after the date of publication.
(b) Paperwork Reduction Act.--The requirements under
chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code, (commonly known
as the ``Paperwork Reduction Act'') shall not apply to any
action to implement this title.

SEC. 129. CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION.

(a) In General.--The Secretary may not disclose or use
information (including information provided during
administrative or judicial review) provided in applications
filed under this title or in requests for DACA for the
purpose of immigration enforcement.
(b) Referrals Prohibited.--The Secretary, based solely on
information provided in an application for adjustment of
status under this title (including information provided
during administrative or judicial review) or an application
for DACA, may not refer an applicant to U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, or
any designee of either such entity.
(c) Limited Exception.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and
(b), information provided in an application for adjustment of
status under this title may be shared with Federal security
and law enforcement agencies--

[[Page H4270]]

(1) for assistance in the consideration of an application
for adjustment of status under this title;
(2) to identify or prevent fraudulent claims;
(3) for national security purposes; or
(4) for the investigation or prosecution of any felony
offense not related to immigration status.
(d) Penalty.--Any person who knowingly uses, publishes, or
permits information to be examined in violation of this
section shall be fined not more than $10,000.

SEC. 130. GRANT PROGRAM TO ASSIST ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS.

(a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Homeland Security
shall establish, within U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services, a program to award grants, on a competitive basis,
to eligible nonprofit organizations that will use the funding
to assist eligible applicants under this title by providing
them with the services described in subsection (b).
(b) Use of Funds.--Grant funds awarded under this section
shall be used for the design and implementation of programs
that provide--
(1) information to the public regarding the eligibility and
benefits of permanent resident status under this title
(whether on a conditional basis, or without the conditional
basis as provided in section 113(c)(2)), particularly to
individuals potentially eligible for such status;
(2) assistance, within the scope of authorized practice of
immigration law, to individuals submitting applications for
adjustment of status under this title (whether on a
conditional basis, or without the conditional basis as
provided in section 113(c)(2)), including--
(A) screening prospective applicants to assess their
eligibility for such status;
(B) completing applications and petitions, including
providing assistance in obtaining the requisite documents and
supporting evidence; and
(C) providing any other assistance that the Secretary or
grantee considers useful or necessary to apply for adjustment
of status under this title (whether on a conditional basis,
or without the conditional basis as provided in section
113(c)(2)); and
(3) assistance, within the scope of authorized practice of
immigration law, and instruction, to individuals--
(A) on the rights and responsibilities of United States
citizenship;
(B) in civics and English as a second language;
(C) in preparation for the General Education Development
test; and
(D) in applying for adjustment of status and United States
citizenship.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) Amounts authorized.--There are authorized to be
appropriated such sums as may be necessary for each of the
fiscal years 2020 through 2030 to carry out this section.
(2) Availability.--Any amounts appropriated pursuant to
paragraph (1) shall remain available until expended.

SEC. 131. PROVISIONS AFFECTING ELIGIBILITY FOR ADJUSTMENT OF
STATUS.

An alien's eligibility to be lawfully admitted for
permanent residence under this title (whether on a
conditional basis, or without the conditional basis as
provided in section 113(c)(2)) shall not preclude the alien
from seeking any status under any other provision of law for
which the alien may otherwise be eligible.

SEC. 132. SUPPLEMENTARY SURCHARGE FOR APPOINTED COUNSEL.

(a) In General.--Except as provided in section 122 and in
cases where the applicant is exempt from paying a fee under
section 123(c), in any case in which a fee is charged
pursuant to this title, an additional surcharge of $25 shall
be imposed and collected for the purpose of providing
appointed counsel to applicants seeking judicial review of
the Secretary's decision to provisionally deny an application
under section 126(c)(3).
(b) Immigration Counsel Account.--There is established in
the general fund of the Treasury a separate account which
shall be known as the ``Immigration Counsel Account''. Fees
collected under subsection (a) shall be deposited into the
Immigration Counsel Account and shall to remain available
until expended for purposes of providing appointed counsel as
required under this title.
(c) Report.--At the end of each 2-year period, beginning
with the establishment of this account, the Secretary of
Homeland Security shall submit a report to the Congress
concerning the status of the account, including any balances
therein, and recommend any adjustment in the prescribed fee
that may be required to ensure that the receipts collected
from the fee charged for the succeeding two years equal, as
closely as possible, the cost of providing appointed counsel
as required under this title.

SEC. 133. ANNUAL REPORT ON PROVISIONAL DENIAL AUTHORITY.

Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of
this Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary of Homeland
Security shall submit to the Congress a report detailing the
number of applicants that receive--
(1) a provisional denial under this title;
(2) a final denial under this title without seeking
judicial review;
(3) a final denial under this title after seeking judicial
review; and
(4) an approval under this title after seeking judicial
review.

TITLE II--AMERICAN PROMISE ACT

SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``American Promise Act of
2019''.

Subtitle A--Treatment of Certain Nationals of Certain Countries
Designated for Temporary Protected Status or Deferred Enforced
Departure

SEC. 211. ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS FOR CERTAIN NATIONALS OF
CERTAIN COUNTRIES DESIGNATED FOR TEMPORARY
PROTECTED STATUS OR DEFERRED ENFORCED
DEPARTURE.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the Secretary or the Attorney General shall cancel the
removal of, and adjust to the status of an alien lawfully
admitted for permanent residence, an alien described in
subsection (b) if the alien--
(1) applies for such adjustment, including submitting any
required documents under section 227, not later than 3 years
after the date of the enactment of this Act;
(2) has been continuously physically present in the United
States for a period of not less than 3 years before the date
of the enactment of this Act; and
(3) is not inadmissible under paragraph (1), (2), (3),
(6)(D), (6)(E), (6)(F), (6)(G), (8), or (10) of section
212(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1182(a)).
(b) Aliens Eligible for Adjustment of Status.--An alien
shall be eligible for adjustment of status under this section
if the alien is an individual--
(1) who--
(A) is a national of a foreign state (or part thereof) (or
in the case of an alien having no nationality, is a person
who last habitually resided in such state) with a designation
under subsection (b) of section 244 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)) on January 1, 2017, who
had or was otherwise eligible for temporary protected status
on such date notwithstanding subsections (c)(1)(A)(iv) and
(c)(3)(C) of such section; and
(B) has not engaged in conduct since such date that would
render the alien ineligible for temporary protected status
under section 244(c)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1245a(c)(2)); or
(2) who was eligible for Deferred Enforced Departure as of
January 1, 2017, and has not engaged in conduct since that
date that would render the alien ineligible for Deferred
Enforced Departure.
(c) Application.--
(1) Fee.--The Secretary shall, subject to an exemption
under section 223(c), require an alien applying for
adjustment of status under this section to pay a reasonable
fee that is commensurate with the cost of processing the
application, but does not exceed $1,140.
(2) Background checks.--The Secretary may not grant an
alien permanent resident status on a conditional basis under
this section until the requirements of section 222 are
satisfied.
(3) Withdrawal of application.--The Secretary of Homeland
Security shall, upon receipt of a request to withdraw an
application for adjustment of status under this section,
cease processing of the application and close the case.
Withdrawal of the application under this subsection shall not
prejudice any future application filed by the applicant for
any immigration benefit under this title or under the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq).

Subtitle B--General Provisions

SEC. 221. DEFINITIONS.

(a) In General.--In this title:
(1) In general.--Except as otherwise specifically provided,
any term used in this title that is used in the immigration
laws shall have the meaning given such term in the
immigration laws.
(2) Disability.--The term ``disability'' has the meaning
given such term in section 3(1) of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12102(1)).
(3) Federal poverty line.--The term ``Federal poverty
line'' has the meaning given such term in section 213A(h) of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1183a).
(4) Immigration laws.--The term ``immigration laws'' has
the meaning given such term in section 101(a)(17) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(17)).
(5) Secretary.--Except as otherwise specifically provided,
the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Homeland
Security.
(6) Uniformed services.--The term ``Uniformed Services''
has the meaning given the term ``uniformed services'' in
section 101(a) of title 10, United States Code.
(b) Treatment of Expunged Convictions.--For purposes of
adjustment of status under this title, the terms
``convicted'' and ``conviction'', as used in sections 212 and
244 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182,
1254a), do not include a judgment that has been expunged or
set aside, that resulted in a rehabilitative disposition, or
the equivalent.

SEC. 222. SUBMISSION OF BIOMETRIC AND BIOGRAPHIC DATA;
BACKGROUND CHECKS.

(a) Submission of Biometric and Biographic Data.--The
Secretary may not grant an alien adjustment of status under
this title unless the alien submits biometric and biographic
data, in accordance with procedures established by the
Secretary. The Secretary shall provide an alternative
procedure for aliens who are unable to provide such biometric
or biographic data because of a physical impairment.
(b) Background Checks.--The Secretary shall use biometric,
biographic, and other data that the Secretary determines
appropriate to conduct security and law enforcement
background checks and to determine whether there is any
criminal, national security, or other factor that would
render the alien ineligible for adjustment of status under
this title. The status of an alien may not be adjusted unless
security and law enforcement background checks are completed
to the satisfaction of the Secretary.

SEC. 223. LIMITATION ON REMOVAL; APPLICATION AND FEE
EXEMPTION; WAIVER OF GROUNDS FOR
INADMISSIBILITY AND OTHER CONDITIONS ON
ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS.

(a) Limitation on Removal.--An alien who appears to be
prima facie eligible for relief under

[[Page H4271]]

this title shall be given a reasonable opportunity to apply
for such relief and may not be removed until, subject to
section 226(c), a final decision establishing ineligibility
for relief is rendered.
(b) Application.--An alien present in the United States who
has been ordered removed or has been permitted to depart
voluntarily from the United States may, notwithstanding such
order or permission to depart, apply for adjustment of status
under this title. Such alien shall not be required to file a
separate motion to reopen, reconsider, or vacate the order of
removal. If the Secretary approves the application, the
Secretary shall cancel the order of removal. If the Secretary
renders a final administrative decision to deny the
application, the order of removal or permission to depart
shall be effective and enforceable to the same extent as if
the application had not been made, only after all available
administrative and judicial remedies have been exhausted.
(c) Fee Exemption.--An applicant may be exempted from
paying an application fee required under this title if the
applicant--
(1) is younger than 18 years of age;
(2) received total income, during the 12-month period
immediately preceding the date on which the applicant files
an application under this title, that is less than 150
percent of the Federal poverty line;
(3) is in foster care or otherwise lacks any parental or
other familial support; or
(4) cannot care for himself or herself because of a
serious, chronic disability.
(d) Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), with
respect to any benefit under this title, and in addition to
any waivers that are otherwise available, the Secretary may
waive the grounds of inadmissibility under paragraph (1),
subparagraphs (A), (C), and (D) of paragraph (2),
subparagraphs (D) through (G) of paragraph (6), or paragraph
(10)(D) of section 212(a) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)) for humanitarian purposes, for family
unity, or because the waiver is otherwise in the public
interest.
(2) Exception.--The Secretary may not waive a ground
described in paragraph (1) if such inadmissibility is based
on a conviction or convictions, and such conviction or
convictions would otherwise render the alien ineligible under
section 244(c)(2)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(8 U.S.C. 1254a(c)(2)(B)).
(e) Advance Parole.--During the period beginning on the
date on which an alien applies for adjustment of status under
this title and ending on the date on which the Secretary
makes a final decision regarding such application, the alien
shall be eligible to apply for advance parole. Section 101(g)
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(g))
shall not apply to an alien granted advance parole under this
section.
(f) Employment.--An alien whose removal is stayed pursuant
to this title, or who has pending an application under this
title, shall, upon application to the Secretary, be granted
an employment authorization document.

SEC. 224. DETERMINATION OF CONTINUOUS PRESENCE.

(a) Effect of Notice to Appear.--Any period of continuous
physical presence in the United States of an alien who
applies for adjustment of status under this title shall not
terminate when the alien is served a notice to appear under
section 239(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1229(a)).
(b) Treatment of Certain Breaks in Presence.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and
(3), an alien shall be considered to have failed to maintain
continuous physical presence in the United States under this
title if the alien has departed from the United States for
any period exceeding 90 days or for any periods, in the
aggregate, exceeding 180 days.
(2) Extensions for extenuating circumstances.--The
Secretary may extend the time periods described in paragraph
(1) for an alien who demonstrates that the failure to timely
return to the United States was due to extenuating
circumstances beyond the alien's control, including the
serious illness of the alien, or death or serious illness of
a parent, grandparent, sibling, or child of the alien.
(3) Travel authorized by the secretary.--Any period of
travel outside of the United States by an alien that was
authorized by the Secretary may not be counted toward any
period of departure from the United States under paragraph
(1).
(c) Waiver of Physical Presence.--With respect to aliens
who were removed or departed the United States on or after
January 20, 2017, and who were continuously physically
present in the United States for at least 3 years prior to
such removal or departure, the Secretary may, as a matter of
discretion, waive the physical presence requirement under
section 211(a)(2) for humanitarian purposes, for family
unity, or because a waiver is otherwise in the public
interest. The Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary
of State, shall establish a procedure for such aliens to
apply for relief under section 211 from outside the United
States if they would have been eligible for relief under such
section, but for their removal or departure.

SEC. 225. EXEMPTION FROM NUMERICAL LIMITATIONS.

Nothing in this title or in any other law may be construed
to apply a numerical limitation on the number of aliens who
may be granted permanent resident status under this title.

SEC. 226. AVAILABILITY OF ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL REVIEW.

SEC. 227. DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS.

(a) Documents Establishing Identity.--An alien's
application for permanent resident status under this title
may include, as evidence of identity, the following:
(1) A passport or national identity document from the
alien's country of origin that includes the alien's name and
the alien's photograph or fingerprint.
(2) The alien's birth certificate and an identity card that
includes the alien's name and photograph.
(3) A school identification card that includes the alien's
name and photograph, and school records showing the alien's
name and that the alien is or was enrolled at the school.
(4) A Uniformed Services identification card issued by the
Department of Defense.
(5) Any immigration or other document issued by the United
States Government bearing the alien's name and photograph.
(6) A State-issued identification card bearing the alien's
name and photograph.
(7) Any other evidence determined to be credible by the
Secretary.
(b) Documents Establishing Continuous Physical Presence.--
An alien's application for permanent resident status under
this title may include, as evidence that the alien has been
continuously physically present in the United States, as
required under section 211(a)(2), the following:
(1) Passport entries, including admission stamps on the
alien's passport.
(2) Any document from the Department of Justice or the
Department of Homeland Security noting the alien's date of
entry into the United States.
(3) Records from any educational institution the alien has
attended in the United States.
(4) Employment records of the alien that include the
employer's name and contact information.
(5) Records of service from the Uniformed Services.
(6) Official records from a religious entity confirming the
alien's participation in a religious ceremony.
(7) A birth certificate for a child who was born in the
United States.
(8) Hospital or medical records showing medical treatment
or hospitalization, the name of the medical facility or
physician, and the date of the treatment or hospitalization.
(9) Automobile license receipts or registration.
(10) Deeds, mortgages, or rental agreement contracts.
(11) Rent receipts or utility bills bearing the alien's
name or the name of an immediate family member of the alien,
and the alien's address.
(12) Tax receipts;
(13) Insurance policies.
(14) Remittance records, including copies of money order
receipts sent in or out of the country.
(15) Travel records.
(16) Dated bank transactions.
(17) Two or more sworn affidavits from individuals who are
not related to the alien who have direct knowledge of the
alien's continuous physical presence in the United States,
that contain--
(A) the name, address, and telephone number of the affiant;
and
(B) the nature and duration of the relationship between the
affiant and the alien.
(18) Any other evidence determined to be credible by the
Secretary.
(c) Documents Establishing Exemption From Application
Fees.--An alien's application for permanent resident status
under this title may include, as evidence that the alien is
exempt from an application fee under section 223(c), the
following:
(1) Documents to establish age.--To establish that an alien
meets an age requirement, the alien may provide proof of
identity, as described in subsection (a), that establishes
that the alien is younger than 18 years of age.
(2) Documents to establish income.--To establish the
alien's income, the alien may provide--
(A) employment records or other records of earned income,
including records that have been maintained by the Social
Security Administration, the Internal Revenue Service, or any
other Federal, State, or local government agency;
(B) bank records; or
(C) at least 2 sworn affidavits from individuals who are
not related to the alien and who have direct knowledge of the
alien's work and income that contain--
(i) the name, address, and telephone number of the affiant;
and
(ii) the nature and duration of the relationship between
the affiant and the alien.

[[Page H4272]]

(3) Documents to establish foster care, lack of familial
support, or serious, chronic disability.--To establish that
the alien is in foster care, lacks parental or familial
support, or has a serious, chronic disability, the alien may
provide at least 2 sworn affidavits from individuals who are
not related to the alien and who have direct knowledge of the
circumstances that contain--
(A) a statement that the alien is in foster care, otherwise
lacks any parental or other familiar support, or has a
serious, chronic disability, as appropriate;
(B) the name, address, and telephone number of the affiant;
and
(C) the nature and duration of the relationship between the
affiant and the alien.
(d) Authority to Prohibit Use of Certain Documents.--If the
Secretary determines, after publication in the Federal
Register and an opportunity for public comment, that any
document or class of documents does not reliably establish
identity or that permanent resident status under this title
is being obtained fraudulently to an unacceptable degree, the
Secretary may prohibit or restrict the use of such document
or class of documents.

SEC. 228. RULE MAKING.

(a) In General.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall publish in the
Federal Register interim final rules implementing this title,
which shall allow eligible individuals to immediately apply
for relief under section 211. Notwithstanding section 553 of
title 5, United States Code, the regulation shall be
effective, on an interim basis, immediately upon publication,
but may be subject to change and revision after public notice
and opportunity for a period of public comment. The Secretary
shall finalize such rules not later than 180 days after the
date of publication.
(b) Paperwork Reduction Act.--The requirements under
chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code, (commonly known
as the ``Paperwork Reduction Act'') shall not apply to any
action to implement this title.

SEC. 229. CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION.

(a) In General.--The Secretary may not disclose or use
information provided in applications filed under this title
(including information provided during administrative or
judicial review) for the purpose of immigration enforcement.
(b) Referrals Prohibited.--The Secretary, based solely on
information provided in an application for adjustment of
status under this title (including information provided
during administrative or judicial review), may not refer an
applicant to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S.
Customs and Border Protection, or any designee of either such
entity .
(c) Limited Exception.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and
(b), information provided in an application for adjustment of
status under this title may be shared with Federal security
and law enforcement agencies--
(1) for assistance in the consideration of an application
for adjustment of status under this title;
(2) to identify or prevent fraudulent claims;
(3) for national security purposes; or
(4) for the investigation or prosecution of any felony not
related to immigration status.
(d) Penalty.--Any person who knowingly uses, publishes, or
permits information to be examined in violation of this
section shall be fined not more than $10,000.

SEC. 230. GRANT PROGRAM TO ASSIST ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS.

(a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Homeland Security
shall establish, within U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services, a program to award grants, on a competitive basis,
to eligible nonprofit organizations that will use the funding
to assist eligible applicants under this title by providing
them with the services described in subsection (b).
(b) Use of Funds.--Grant funds awarded under this section
shall be used for the design and implementation of programs
that provide--
(1) information to the public regarding the eligibility and
benefits of permanent resident status under this title,
particularly to individuals potentially eligible for such
status;
(2) assistance, within the scope of authorized practice of
immigration law, to individuals submitting applications for
adjustment of status under this title, including--
(A) screening prospective applicants to assess their
eligibility for such status;
(B) completing applications and petitions, including
providing assistance in obtaining the requisite documents and
supporting evidence; and
(C) providing any other assistance that the Secretary or
grantee considers useful or necessary to apply for adjustment
of status under this title; and
(3) assistance, within the scope of authorized practice of
immigration law, and instruction, to individuals--
(A) on the rights and responsibilities of United States
citizenship;
(B) in civics and English as a second language;
(C) in preparation for the General Education Development
test; and
(D) in applying for adjustment of status and United States
citizenship.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) Amounts authorized.--There are authorized to be
appropriated such sums as may be necessary for each of the
fiscal years 2020 through 2030 to carry out this section.
(2) Availability.--Any amounts appropriated pursuant to
paragraph (1) shall remain available until expended.

SEC. 231. PROVISIONS AFFECTING ELIGIBILITY FOR ADJUSTMENT OF
STATUS.

An alien's eligibility to be lawfully admitted for
permanent residence under this title shall not preclude the
alien from seeking any status under any other provision of
law for which the alien may otherwise be eligible.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for
2 hours, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Collins) each will control 1 hour.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.

General Leave

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and insert extraneous material on H.R. 6.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
Madam Speaker, H.R. 6, the American Dream and Promise Act of 2019, is
vital legislation that provides a path to lawful permanent resident, or
LPR, status for two groups of people who enrich our Nation and who are
in dire need of protection, Dreamers, and long-term recipients of
humanitarian relief, known as Temporary Protected Status, or TPS, and
Deferred Enforcement Departure, or DED.
Dreamers are undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as
children and have embraced this country as their own. They are our
neighbors and coworkers; they are the classmates of our children; and
they serve in our military with distinction. Many did not even know
they were not born here and were not American citizens until they found
they could not get drivers licenses or in-state tuition rates for
college.
That is why it was so devastating when the Trump administration
announced that it was ending the Deferred Action for Childhood
Arrivals, also known as DACA, which enabled approximately 800,000
Dreamers to work lawfully, attend school, and plan their lives without
the constant threat of deportation.
Although less is known or understood about long-time TPS and DED
recipients, there is no doubt that they are equally deserving of our
protection and support. Broadly speaking, TPS and DED provide
humanitarian relief to individuals from countries facing dangerous
conditions or experiencing upheaval, such as ongoing armed conflict,
natural disasters, or other extraordinary conditions.
TPS and DED recipients have lived in the United States, on average,
for decades, laying down deep roots in our communities. They also
contribute to the U.S. economy by making up a significant portion of
the workforce in key industries, including construction and food
service, as well as through consumer spending and tax revenue.
Unfortunately, like Dreamers, their futures now hang in the balance
as a result of the Trump administration's anti-immigrant, enforcement-
only approach to immigration policy. Since September 2017, the
administration has announced the termination of TPS and DED for seven
affected countries.
Fortunately, the courts have issued multiple injunctions preventing
efforts to terminate DACA and TPS from moving forward. But even if the
courts ultimately rule against the administration, only a fraction of
Dreamers and TPS recipients will benefit from a reprieve that is itself
only temporary. That is why we must pass H.R. 6 today to provide
Dreamers and TPS recipients the permanent protections they need and
deserve.
The American Dream and Promise Act is carefully crafted legislation
that delivers needed protections, while creating rigorous eligibility
standards, including specifically restricting eligibility to those
individuals who pose no public safety or national security concerns.
I want to congratulate my colleagues, Representatives Lucille Roybal-
Allard, Nydia Velazquez, and you, Madam Speaker, Yvette Clarke, for
introducing this important legislation.
I would also like to thank the distinguished chair and vice chair of
the Immigration Subcommittee, Representatives Zoe Lofgren and Pramila
Jayapal. Their steadfast support for

[[Page H4273]]

the Dreamer and TPS/DED populations, and their tireless efforts, have
been essential in bringing this bill to the floor today.
Dreamers and TPS and DED recipients contribute to our thriving
economy, and they make America a stronger, more united, and more
diverse nation. Failing to provide permanent protections for them at
this critical juncture would be a travesty, not only for these
individuals, but also for us as a country.
I hope that all of my colleagues will stand up for these vital
members of our society when it truly counts by supporting H.R. 6 today.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I rise today in opposition to H.R. 6, the American Dream and Promise
Act of 2019.
Last week, I went to El Paso to see what was going on on our southern
border. I can tell my colleagues today that our border is an utter
disaster.
Last month, Customs and Border Protection apprehended an average of
4,500 people every day. During the first 7 months of the fiscal year,
CBP has apprehended more individuals than in any full fiscal year since
2009.
While I was in El Paso, a single group of more than 1,000 aliens
illegally walked across the border from Juarez. A group of migrants the
size of a high school strolled right into downtown El Paso and
surrendered to Border Patrol. I personally witnessed hundreds of others
in smaller groups do the same thing.
The number of family unit members and unaccompanied alien minors
apprehended in April set records, and May numbers eclipsed those
records. The number of single-adult apprehensions has now reached a 5-
year high.
So far this year, Border Patrol has encountered over 180 large
groups, those with over 100 people. With so many people entering
illegally, it is no wonder Border Patrol processing centers are far
beyond capacity and ICE detention facilities are full.
Even the NGOs providing shelter and other aid to migrants are
completely overwhelmed by the unending surge of people who have learned
we are rewarding those who break our laws and endangering vulnerable
men, women, and children in the process.
Perhaps the worst part of this humanitarian crisis is the toll it
takes on children. CBP has identified over 3,000 potentially fraudulent
family units arriving at the border. As unbelievable as it may sound,
aliens admitted that they have ``borrowed,'' ``rented,'' or ``bought,''
yes, ``bought'' a child because they know showing up with a child at
the border all but guarantees release into America's interior.
It is a crisis. One of the overworked, overwhelmed agents that I met
last week told me, after I thanked him for doing his work and being
there, he looked at me and he said: ``I'm doing my job; now y'all go do
yours.''
I took that to heart. I believe that the surge of migrants can be all
but ended by enacting a legislation to fix the Flores settlement, which
the Obama administration agreed with me on; amend the Trafficking
Victims Protection Act and raise the credible fear standard of asylum.
But what are my Democratic colleagues going to do to address this
situation? Nothing.
Democrats have the chance to help the overworked DHS heroes,
overwhelmed NGOs, and the American people who believe in our country's
sovereignty.
Sadly, the Democrats are making us consider a bill that will worsen,
give a green light to the border crisis, incentivizing more people to
cross our borders illegally in hopes of getting a piece of the amnesty
pie.
No doubt, at this very minute, the smuggling cartels are getting the
word out--just as we heard from migrants walking across our border,
they were told it's open--that there's availability, to come across.
They are telling them Congress is going to legalize millions. Just get
there. They will do it for you.
I have repeatedly implored my committee chairman to give us a bill
legalizing some of the illegal immigrant population and include
enforcement measures to secure our border and enforce our laws inside
our country.

{time} 1515

Sadly, Democrats refuse. They had a chance to show they are serious
about an immigration solution for DACA recipients and perhaps even for
the Dreamers they have talked about protecting for years. Instead,
today, we are considering a political messaging bill. The message is
that America won't enforce its laws or protect its people.
H.R. 6 provides a special path to citizenship for millions of illegal
immigrants as well as hundreds of thousands of TPS and DED, or deferred
enforced departure, recipients. It places the interests of those who
have violated our laws before those people who have waited patiently
for green cards to become available. Because the bill provides that
same path to some legal nonimmigrants and even people living outside
America, the number of potential beneficiaries is completely unknown.
H.R. 6 allows criminal aliens and those who have committed
immigration fraud to receive green cards. It rewards with green cards
and eventual citizenship the parents who knowingly brought children to
the U.S. illegally. It incentives fraud through lax documentation
requirements, allowing affidavits to show compliance with some of those
requirements and allowing people to withdraw an application at any time
without prejudice.
H.R. 6 pretends to prevent alien gang members from getting green
cards, but the prohibition is so deliberately narrow, it is virtually
unworkable.
H.R. 6 actually provides U.S. taxpayer funds to NGOs, in the form of
grant programs, to help illegal aliens apply for green cards.
It has been said by my colleagues across the aisle to not worry, that
the Department of Homeland Security Secretary will have the
nondelegable ability to review these. I am not sure what my colleagues
across the aisle believe the Secretary does all day except review these
applications. It is the most amazing thought and statement I have ever
heard.
If enacted, H.R. 6 would overwhelm U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services to the point where adjudicators will be pulled off of
processing legal immigration benefits to process the millions of
applications resulting from this bill. There will be several million
applications for amnesty because H.R. 6 has no consequence for filing a
false or frivolous application.
Hear me clearly: A person could file a false or frivolous
application, and there is no consequence to it.
CBO has estimated that over the 2020 to 2029 period, the two bills
combined to make H.R. 6 would cost $26.3 billion and $8.3 billion
respectively, and that is, frankly, I believe, an underestimate.
As evidenced by the two floor votes last year, Republicans want to
provide legal status for DACA recipients. We want to do it the right
way, to minimize fraud, to ensure criminals cannot get legal status,
and to bolster border security. Without these commonsense measures and
compassionate measures, we will find ourselves repeating this
conversation a few years from now.
Madam Speaker, H.R. 6 does none of these things, so I urge my
colleagues to oppose this bill.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lofgren), the distinguished chairperson of the
Immigration and Citizenship Subcommittee.
Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, today, we have the privilege of voting
for the American Dream and Promise Act of 2019. This vote will bring
Dreamers, young immigrants who came to the country as children, as well
as individuals who have lived here lawfully for years under temporary
protected status or deferred enforced departure, another step closer to
being fully recognized as American.
Many of us, both inside and outside this room, have been working to
advance this legislation for almost two decades. It is hard to believe
that 18 years have passed since the Dream Act was first introduced, and
9 years have passed since the House last voted on it.
Yet, despite bipartisan support in Congress as well as the support of
almost 90 percent of the American people, we have thus far been unable
to get this bill enacted into law.

[[Page H4274]]

I am proud to stand here with so many colleagues who worked with
determination over the years to bring this bill to the floor, as well
as all the young people and their allies who persisted through setbacks
and never gave up on their call for lawful permanent residence.
Madam Speaker, our work has paid off. Today, I urge my colleagues to
support the American Dream and Promise Act.
In September 2017, President Trump announced the end of the Deferred
Action for Childhood Arrivals program, otherwise known as DACA, which
provided temporary relief from removal to approximately 800,000
Dreamers. Over the next few months, the administration announced plans
to terminate the TPS designation for six countries, as well as DED for
Liberia. These actions have upended the lives of hundreds of thousands
of Dreamers and TPS and DED holders.
They have come to the United States in different ways, and they have
had different opportunities once they arrived. But today, they are
united not only by the passage of time but also by the uncertainty of
the future. Congress has the power to bring certainty to their lives by
passing this act.
The bill provides a fair and reasonable opportunity for Dreamers to
apply for lawful permanent residence with tough eligibility standards
and discretion to consider unique situations on a case-by-case basis.
The TPS and DED holders must continue to meet the strict eligibility
requirements that already apply to them.
Based on comments made earlier during the rules debate, comments that
I assume may be repeated during this debate, I feel the need to remind
everyone just how tough this bill is.
To begin with, the bill applies criminal bars that apply to any other
immigrant seeking admission to the United States. It then adds to
current law by disqualifying anyone convicted of any felony or more
than two misdemeanors.

On top of that, it authorizes the Secretary to deny individuals who
pose a threat to public safety based on a single misdemeanor
conviction, a juvenile delinquency adjudication, or proof of gang-
related activities.
This is a very tough bill. Anyone who poses a threat to public safety
is simply ineligible under this bill.
This legislation should not be controversial. The Dream Act has
enjoyed bipartisan support in the past, with many of the same
provisions. TPS and DED holders are integral parts of our communities
and have been contributing to our economy for years, if not decades.
On this point, I also want to stress the important economic benefits
that Dreamers and TPS and DED holders provide to our country.
Immigrants eligible for the American Dream and Promise Act own
215,400 homes in the United States and pay an estimated $2.5 billion in
annual mortgage payments. If these individuals were to lose their
homes, be deported, and default, it would certainly shock housing
markets around the country and cause serious damage to cities, States,
and the economy as a whole.
Eligible immigrants and their households currently contribute around
$17.4 billion per year in Federal taxes and $9.7 billion per year in
State and local taxes.
Annually, these households generate over $75 billion in spending
power. That money helps to fuel local economies, creating new jobs and
bringing new economic prosperity to everyone living and working with
H.R. 6 beneficiaries across the country.
Without this bill, these individuals would lose their status and be
kicked out of the workforce, creating a major hole in the American
economy.
That may be why the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has indicated it may
make this bill a key vote for its scoring purposes and why hundreds of
major business leaders are urging us to pass this bill in order to grow
the economy and bolster our global competitiveness.
We must set aside partisanship and move this bill forward so that
Dreamers and long-term TPS and DED recipients can finally have the
peace of mind they deserve and so that our country can have the
contributions that they are ready to make.
Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote for the bill.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
might consume.
Madam Speaker, just quickly, if their criminality keeps them simply
ineligible, then why does the bill have an entire section devoted to
the Secretary's provisional authority of those who conduct a public
safety determination?
By the way, again, going to the Secretary of Homeland Security, I am
not sure what they believe that person does, but it is definitely not
to review these every day.
Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr.
Rogers), the ranking member of the Committee on Homeland Security.
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Madam Speaker, I thank the ranking member for
yielding and for his leadership on this issue.
Madam Speaker, there is a crisis at our southwest border. In fact, we
are on track to break nearly every record from recent history.
Just last week, CBP apprehended a single group, one group, with 1,036
people in it at the border. Madam Speaker, we couldn't fit that many
people in this Chamber, and we certainly can't fit them in a single
Border Patrol station.
This bill does nothing to address this crisis. Instead, it tells an
entire generation of illegal immigrants that breaking our laws is
rewarded.
This is not rocket science. We have seen this before. In 2014, a wave
of unaccompanied children came to our borders, driven by smuggler
propaganda citing DACA and other amnesty policies.
The smugglers have doubled down. They call children permisos, or
permits, and use them to get scores of adults, unrelated to the
children, across the border.
Securing our border and enforcing our laws is the only way to break
this cycle.
Ranking Member Collins introduced legislation to close the asylum
loopholes that are fueling this crisis. That is the bill that should be
on the floor today.
We also desperately need to provide supplemental funding to get us
through this crisis. Last month, I asked the House to provide $4.5
billion that DHS requested to address this humanitarian and security
crisis. Despite urgent pleas for additional funds from frontline
personnel responsible for caring for unaccompanied children, Democrats
refused to add the funds to the supplemental.
Today, the majority again rejected those funds during the previous
question vote. Democrats haven't approved a dime to address this
crisis.
Because of the political dysfunction in their own Caucus, they
stubbornly refuse to put forward real solutions. Instead, they put
forward a bill today that is sending a clear message: Democrats would
rather reward illegal immigrants than secure our border, enforce our
laws, and fix this crisis. It is disgraceful.
Madam Speaker, I oppose this bill.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Roybal-Allard), the chief sponsor of this bill.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Madam Speaker, let me begin by thanking my
cosponsors, Nydia Velazquez and Yvette Clarke, Judiciary Chairman
Nadler, Chairman Lofgren, the Judiciary Committee, and especially
Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal for the extraordinary work they did in
bringing this bill to the floor.
Today is truly a historic day for our country. It will be the first
time the House of Representatives will pass a Dream Act under regular
order, sending a strong message that Dreamers and TPS and DED
recipients truly belong in America and contribute greatly to its
success.
The American Dream and Promise Act is landmark legislation that will
provide 2.1 million Dreamers with hope, security, and the opportunity
to become American citizens.

We would not be here today without the tireless work of Dreamers and
TPS and DED recipients who bravely and publicly shared their stories
with Members of Congress and our Nation. Their stories of endurance,
resourcefulness, and heartbreak, coupled with their love of America, is
what inspired me in 2001

[[Page H4275]]

to introduce the first Dream bill, a bipartisan bill known as the
Student Adjustment Act, with former Congressmen Howard Berman and Chris
Cannon.
One such story is of Josue, a student studying aerospace engineering.
He dreams of contributing to the advancement of space exploration and
is one of many Dreamers who will produce a new generation of scientific
research that will help shape our country's future.
Another Dreamer is Carolina, who hopes to become a teacher, serving
as a role model, as her high school teacher did for her.
And there is Julio, who is working toward a psychology degree and
whose goal is to serve historically underrepresented and marginalized
students as a community college counselor.
This is just a sampling of Dreamers whose stories exemplify American
values, talents, and a desire to give back to their community and the
only country they know as home.
Although Dreamers live under the veil of fear and uncertainty, they
still contribute over $17.3 billion in Federal taxes and nearly $9.7
billion in State and local taxes each year. Their households have $75
billion in buying power.
The reality is TPS and DED recipients and our Nation's Dreamers make
our Nation stronger with the contributions they make to our economy and
our American society. We cannot afford to lose or hinder their talents,
resilience, and contributions to our Nation.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Buck), the ranking member of the
Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship.
Mr. BUCK. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Collins), the ranking member, for yielding.
Madam Speaker, this bill we are debating today is fatally flawed.
Republicans are for a compassionate solution to help DACA recipients,
but that solution must be paired with commonsense border security,
interior enforcement, and changes in policy to stem the tide of illegal
border crossings, human smuggling, and frivolous claims of asylum.
Tragically, this bill does nothing to address the crisis at our
southern border.

{time} 1530

Ninety-nine days ago, Chief of the Border Patrol Carla Provost
testified before the Judiciary Committee that ``a humanitarian and
immigration crisis'' was occurring at the border. By any measure, Chief
Provost is correct.
Border Patrol stats show that total apprehensions in the first 7
months of the current fiscal year have already exceeded the total
apprehensions from last fiscal year.
What does this bill do to address that reality and stem the tide of
illegal border crossings? Nothing.
This year, the Border Patrol has also seen a 266 percent increase in
apprehensions of aliens wanted by law enforcement.
What does this bill do to address that? Nothing. In fact, this bill
contains weak screening requirements that will almost certainly put
criminals on a path to citizenship. Republicans tried to fix this at
committee, but our efforts were rejected by the majority.
The Border Patrol also reports a sharp increase in the apprehension
of gang members.
What does this bill to address that? Nothing. The bill contains no
additional enforcement resources, not even to apprehend and remove
known gang members. This bill will certainly give green cards to gang
members.
Republicans tried to fix this in committee. Democrats rejected the
amendment, impugning the integrity of police departments across America
in the process by suggesting that America's cops indiscriminately add
people to gang databases.
Chief Provost also noted in her February testimony that the nature of
illegal border crossings has changed significantly. A decade ago, the
Border Patrol used to apprehend, primarily, single adult males. Today,
there is an unprecedented influx in family units and unaccompanied
minors.
Over the past 5 years, family unit apprehensions are up 621 percent.
Unaccompanied minor apprehensions are up 105 percent. The Border Patrol
has evidence showing that transnational criminal organizations are
exploiting the law to traffic children, using a child repeatedly to aid
in the smuggling of adults into the U.S.
Why is there a crisis involving family units and children? What
changed? The law.
In 2008, a Democratic Congress enacted the Unaccompanied Alien Child
Protection Act, a law that offers perverse incentives, leading to the
very problems we see today. In 2008, there were 8,041 unaccompanied
minors apprehended at the border; last year, 50,036 apprehensions.
While the nature of the immigrants detained has changed, Congress has
not kept pace with these changes. The Border Patrol is now in need of
diapers, formula, meals, and medical care appropriate for children.
Madam Speaker, you would think that Democrats could at least include
more resources to care for young children at the border, but you would
be wrong. This bill doesn't do that either.
Homeland Security is also hampered by a 2014 court order limiting how
long Immigration and Customs Enforcement can detain not only
unaccompanied minors, but also children traveling with parents and, in
some cases, child traffickers. This means entire family units and
criminals are released into the U.S. after 20 days of detention.
DHS desperately needs Congress to address this critical issue. Does
this bill fix this issue? No, it does not.
We also know that there is abuse of our generous asylum laws. Aliens
encountered at the border are being coached to claim fear, guaranteeing
they will be released into the U.S.
Does this bill do anything to reduce frivolous asylum claims? No.
Does it require asylum seekers to apply at a legal port of entry? No.
Does it hold people accountable for filing or assisting in filing
fraudulent claims? No.
Does it impose any kind of asylum quota? No. This bill fails to
advance even basic asylum fixes.
Make no mistake about it, Madam Speaker: The policies passed by this
House, even if they never become law, will send a message.
If the House passes this bill, Democrats will be sending a clear
message to DACA recipients, those young adults brought here by their
parents illegally, that Democrats are willing to hold these young
adults hostage in the push for open borders.
If the House passes this bill, we will incentivize illegal
immigration, just as Congress did in 2008, and we will certainly get
more of it. That is exactly what this bill will do.
This is not compassionate. It is reckless. It is misguided.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York (Ms. Velazquez), a sponsor of the bill.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation.
Let me thank Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Nadler, Chairwoman Lofgren,
Lucille Roybal-Allard, and Yvette Clarke for all their work on this
legislation.
Today, because of Donald Trump's anti-immigration policies, millions
of immigrants across the country live in constant fear that they will
face deportation and potentially be separated from their families.
Among these immigrant communities are recipients of TPS, or temporary
protected status, or DED, deferred enforced departure.
The portions of this bill I authored say, if you have been here in
the U.S. for 3 years and have been here since January 2017, then you
can apply for legal permanent residence and, from there, pursue
citizenship.
When we talk about our TPS and DED populations, we are talking about
some of our most vulnerable neighbors. These are people who fled
natural disasters or political violence. They came here with the
heartfelt belief that the words inscribed at the base of the Statue of
Liberty, ``Give me . . . your huddled masses yearning to breathe
free,'' are not a hollow tourist attraction.

Those words are a sacred American compact, etched into the character
of our Nation. And, today, as we launch Immigrant Heritage Month, House
Democrats are going to prove to the Dreamers, TPS recipients, and those
in the DED program the words on the base of the statue are a promise we
will honor.

[[Page H4276]]

Madam Speaker, those in the TPS community are our neighbors. The
average TPS recipient has been in the Nation for two decades, and
almost a third arrived in the U.S. younger than age 18; they have built
entire lives here, many have American-born children.
Deporting them will be cruel; it will be inhumane; it will cause
enormous economic disruption; and it would not be the America that we
love and that we know. We cannot let that happen.
For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to do what they know is
right. Vote ``yes'' on this bill. Let's send a strong message to the
world that we recognize that immigrants make America America.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 5
minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Reschenthaler), another
member of the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, this week, as the humanitarian
crisis at our southern border escalates, House Democrats want to pass a
bill that will actually make this situation even worse.
Daily border crossings at our southern border have hit record highs
in a decade. Until just a few weeks ago, my colleagues across the aisle
were calling this a manufactured crisis, but the numbers don't lie. On
average, 4,500 individuals are apprehended each day trying to illegally
cross our southern border.
Border Patrol is completely overwhelmed; ICE facilities are full; and
HHS is at risk of running out of the resources necessary to take care
of unaccompanied children. Yet my colleagues across the aisle want to
just ignore this humanitarian crisis and, instead, pass a bill to
actually encourage and reward illegal entrants and incentivize further
illegal immigration.
H.R. 6 provides amnesty to millions of people, placing the interests
of those who broke our laws above the interests of those who followed
our laws.
The bill also has no enforcement provisions and includes loopholes
that make gang members and other criminals eligible for green cards. It
even requires that U.S. taxpayers fund grant programs to help illegal
immigrants obtain green cards.
Most notably, it fails to provide any additional resources for law
enforcement personnel at our border.
And let's be realistic about this. We all know this is dead on
arrival at the Senate, and here we are just wasting our time.
Congress actually has the power and the responsibility to address the
humanitarian crisis at our southern border. Unfortunately, my
colleagues across the aisle are too busy playing party politics.
I want to thank Ranking Member Doug Collins for introducing
legislation that will actually fix the root causes of the problem at
our southern border, and I ask my colleagues across the aisle to end
this desperate political showmanship and, instead, just work with us to
address this devastating security and humanitarian crisis at our
southern border.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), and I ask unanimous consent
that she may control the time for the majority.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Lee of California). Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York (Ms. Clarke), the sponsor of the bill.
Ms. CLARKE of New York. Madam Speaker, to Speaker Pelosi, Chair
Nadler, and Chair Lofgren, my colleagues Representative Roybal-Allard,
Representative Velazquez, Representative Jayapal, and Representative
Chu, their leadership has been tremendous in bringing forth H.R. 6, the
Dream and Promise Act.
2.5 million, this is how many of our neighbors, our friends, and our
family members will be able to officially call themselves American
citizens because of the Dream and Promise Act as they obtain legal
permanent residency on the pathway to citizenship.
I am proud to sponsor H.R. 6, the Dream and Promise Act, which
provides 2.5 million Dreamers, persons with temporary protected status,
and deferred enforcement departure recipients with a pathway to
citizenship--2.5 million people who already call America home and are
mightily contributing to our society.
As chair of the Congressional Black Caucus Immigration Task Force and
as a second-generation American myself, it is my passion and my duty to
stand up for immigrants.
From rural America to urban America, like in my district in Brooklyn,
New York, immigrants are part of all of our communities. Immigrants
own, operate, and shop at our corner shops and bodegas; immigrants
cheer on their kids at neighborhood soccer games; and immigrants
worship with us at our places of worship. Simply put, immigrants are
woven into the fabric of our society.
The Dream and Promise Act is commonsense immigration policy,
commonsense immigration policy that recognizes today's immigrant
dilemmas--Dreamers and TPS and DED recipients who are contributing to
our communities and are part of our blended status families--and
provides them with a long, overdue pathway to citizenship.
In New York City alone, where my district is located, more than
109,000 people are eligible for the Dream and Promise Act. That number
balloons to more than 180,000 people when you take into account the
entire State of New York. These immigrants are not only a part of our
social fabric, but they directly boost our economy.
I look around in this Chamber and I would be hard-pressed to find
anyone who hasn't been positively impacted, directly or indirectly, by
the multitude of ways that these immigrants have added value to our
communities.
For example, in my home State of New York, immigrants eligible for
the Dream and Promise Act own 9,500 homes and pay $228,300,000 each
year in mortgage payments. These same immigrants contribute more than
$1.6 billion each year in Federal taxes and more.
Having said that, Madam Speaker, I am proud to stand shoulder to
shoulder with my colleagues.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

{time} 1545

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, as we dither and posture and virtue
signal here today, our southern border is collapsing.
The border patrol warns that before this year is out, they will have
apprehended over 1 million illegal aliens making a mockery of our
sovereignty and our asylum laws. Unless Congress acts, these illegals
will have to be released into our country; that is the population of
the cities of Atlanta and Sacramento combined.
Now, instead of taking simple measures necessary to secure our
borders and reserve our asylum laws for the truly persecuted, the House
meets today to grant blanket amnesty to roughly 2.5 million illegal
aliens, encouraging millions more that they, too, can violate our
borders with impunity.
Now, the Democrats have long-advocated free services for illegals:
free healthcare, legal counsel, education, food, housing--all paid by
American taxpayers.
Now, they deny they support illegal immigration; yet, they heap
rewards on those who illegally immigrate.
Many have gone so far as to advocate abolishing the agencies that
defend our borders.
Democrats long ago ceased to call illegal immigration for what it
is--illegal. They have supported allowing illegal aliens to vote in our
elections and opposed visa tracking of foreign nationals entering our
country.
They have even enacted sanctuary laws that require dangerous criminal
illegal aliens to be released back into our communities rather than to
be deported, as Federal law requires.
Now, the real tragedy today is that there are hundreds of thousands
of

[[Page H4277]]

children who were brought here illegally and, in effect, stranded here
without a country.
They have no legal status here, yet little familiarity with their
birth country. And there is broad bipartisan support to remedy this
situation today, but we cannot do that until we first fully secure our
border and fully enforce our immigration laws. Otherwise, we simply
encourage more children be brought here illegally, producing yet
another generation who will come to us in a few years with the same
demands that we hear today.
We could address both issues right now, right here and now. If full
funding of the border wall and reform of our asylum laws were to be
combined with legalizing the status of children who were brought here
and raised here, through no fault of their own, this bill could become
law in a matter of days.
Within days, we could bring these young people out of legal limbo and
restore the integrity of our borders--within days.
But by forcing the completely one-sided partisan approach, the
Democrats end up with precisely nothing.
This is not legislating. This is farce.
And history is screaming this warning at us that nations that either
cannot or will not secure their borders simply aren't around very long.
Madam Speaker, let that not be the epitaph of the American republic.
Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Washington (Ms. Jayapal), the vice chair of the Immigration
Subcommittee, and a fierce proponent of this bill.
Ms. JAYAPAL. Madam Speaker, I am so very proud to rise in strong
support of H.R. 6, the American Dream and Promise Act.
At the heart and the core of this bill are 2.5 million people who are
American in every single way but paper. Dreamers, and those with
temporary protective status and DED, are integral parts of our
communities and families; a community of strivers who have given and
will continue to contribute to America in the finest of our traditions
as a Nation.
Over 400,000 U.S. citizens live in a household with TPS holders. They
own homes in our communities and fill critical workforce gaps central
to our economic and community development, including in construction,
food service and landscaping.
And Dreamers, too, have long-called the United States their home. One
of those Dreamers is Esther, who interned in my office last year.
Esther came to the United States on a visa when she was 3 years old
from South Korea. Her parents sought to obtain more permanent legal
status. They gave an immigration lawyer most of their money, and he ran
away with all of it. Esther's parents' visas expired.
They pushed their kids around in a shopping cart because a stroller
was too expensive. But they started over and they built their lives
here, raising a smart, passionate daughter who went to Harvard.
The DACA status that Esther obtained in 2013 helped her to pursue her
own American dream. And this bill would give her, and so many millions
more, true freedom.
At the core of this bill, Madam Speaker, is the dignity and respect
that we accord to human beings, the way in which we see people and
exercise our own compassion.
We have a rare opportunity today to provide permanent protections for
Dreamers and TPS and DED holders, not just for them, but also for the
approximately 1 million U.S.-born children whose parents would get
permanent protection.
This is a first step, not a last. We must stop criminalizing
immigrants at every turn, even as we willingly accept their labor and
contributions.
We cannot allow xenophobia and racism to permeate our country from
its top ranks. We must continue the work to pass germane and just,
comprehensive immigration reform that provides a roadmap to citizenship
for 11 million undocumented immigrants, strengthens family-based
immigration, and protects workers' rights on the job.

But today, Madam Speaker, we have a chance to right real wrongs for
these young people and TPS and DED holders. And I thank Chairman
Nadler, the incredible Immigration and Citizenship Subcommittee
Chairwoman, Zoe Lofgren, and my colleagues, Representatives Roybal-
Allard, Velazquez, and Clarke for their hard work to bring this
forward.
I also thank our staffers--including mine--Jennifer Chan in my
office, but most of all, Madam Speaker, I thank the Dreamers, TPS and
DED holders, families, friends, and advocates, many of whom are here in
this Chamber.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Clarke of New York). The time of the
gentlewoman has expired.
Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the
gentlewoman.
Ms. JAYAPAL. Madam Speaker, I thank the Dreamers, TPS and DED
holders, the families, friends and advocates, many of whom are right
here in this Chamber with us.
Thank you for your courage in speaking out.
Thank you for demanding a different and more just future for our
country.
Thank you for knowing that we always make the road by walking and for
never giving up.
Madam Speaker, we have a chance to affirm the hope and promise of
America. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this bill.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind all persons in the
gallery that they are here as guests of the House and that any
manifestation of approval or disapproval of proceedings is in violation
of the rules of the House.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs), another committee member.
Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia.
I can't help but to be struck here as I reflect on the markup that we
had, as we have listened to the Rules debate earlier, plus this debate.
I can't help but be struck by the very notion of this is kind of what
happens whenever you start moving the goalposts on what a law should
be.
So under the Obama Administration, deferred action was provided for
children who were brought into the country by a certain date and time,
through no fault of their own, and that number was about 800,000 people
applied for that.
Now, the estimate is somewhere in the neighborhood of an additional 1
million who might have qualified who didn't file the requisite
application. And now, this particular bill, as several of my colleagues
across the aisle have said, will apply to anywhere from 2.2 to 2.7
million people.
You can see the number starts creeping as we go forward here, as we
change laws, and we acknowledge certain ideas about what the law should
be.
So this actually is not about DACA. We left DACA a long time ago.
And, quite frankly, there is no age limit here. So even an alien who
entered the U.S. illegally 30 or 40 years ago, could be granted a green
card under this bill. So we see that it has other problems as well.
So then we start talking about gang members, and we say, Oh, yeah,
no, no, this is really tough on gang members.
But in fact, the denial provision is written so narrowly that it will
almost never exclude gang members. In fact, it actually prohibits the
use of gang databases to establish gang participation in order to deny
green cards to gang members.
You got that? You can't use gang databases.
And moreover, only the Secretary of Homeland Security--and he or she
cannot delegate that authority to other officials--can provisionally
deny an applicant.
And what makes this particularly intriguing is if there is a denial,
we are charging a fee, so that free attorneys can be hired on to
represent these gang members who are provisionally denied. So they can
challenge the Secretary's determination, and that is done by a de novo
review.
So this is a real problem. It is too narrowly crafted in this area.
And there are some other areas--and some of my colleagues have talked
about it--but ultimately, we get to the heart of this, and it is just
this: There is a border crisis. This bill does nothing to stop that
border crisis. It will do nothing to slow the number of people who are
entering this country illegally. In fact, it will do just the opposite,
because it provides an incentive.

[[Page H4278]]

People respond to incentives. I respond to incentives. You respond to
incentives.
We also respond to deterrence. We remove deterrence here. Instead, we
buttressed incentives.
And so we will have a year where we are going to apprehend about 1.2
million people, at the low end. We know that a year ago we were getting
about half; we were apprehending about half the people.

And we know about 4 months ago, we were getting only about a third of
the people. Now, we have no idea what the getaways are.
You can talk to border patrol agents, ICE agents--whoever you want to
talk to down at the border--and they will tell you, ``we have no idea
the numbers coming in because we are overwhelmed.''
When I was down in Yuma, the Yuma facility is designed for 250
people. A month and a half ago, it held 750 people in inhumane
conditions.
No question. Inhumane conditions.
Today, that number is over 1,000, going through that same facility.
That is inhumane.
And so we are just releasing them. We are releasing them, and we are
saying, Come back in a couple of years.
And you know what? We have got a million people who have absconded
from their court dates. We have got another million people with active
removal orders.
You think this is going to serve this problem long-term? I am sad to
tell you, it won't.
You are going to see more people come because you have got the
incentives in place. And they are not just coming from Mexico or the
Northern Triangle. They are coming from Venezuela; they are coming from
Cuba; they are coming from Africa; they are coming from China.
They are coming from all over the world today. And they are coming
because they know that we have no place for them. They will be released
into the interior, and we will continue to be overwhelmed.
This bill will contribute to that problem.
Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a long-serving member of the Committee on the
Judiciary.

{time} 1600

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentlewoman from California, and I
acknowledge all the dynamic leadership that has generated where we are
today, including all the sponsors whose names I recognized earlier and,
of course, the magnificent persons who have met with us over and over
again, who met with me. I remember the roundtable that I had of
Dreamers in Houston, and their stories are powerful.
Let me say to my bipartisan friends, friends from Texas, let us work
together. One gentleman was up speaking about the need for Border
Patrol and CBP. As someone who has introduced comprehensive immigration
reform, as a former ranking member of the Judiciary Committee's
Immigration Subcommittee, I can tell you that we are ready to work.
That work, of course, is done in the Homeland Security Committee.
Let's fund and write the legislation for our leader there, Chairman
Thompson, to be able to provide the resources that CBP is asking for,
which the administration is not giving to them, and that is more staff,
more health facilities, better physical plants, and more judges to help
with the asylum cases.
I am ready to work. Today, we have a job to do. We have a job to do
for the 386,300 immigrants who are eligible in my State, the same State
that my colleagues represent.
These individuals live with 845,300 family members. Interestingly,
they provide some $340 million in mortgage payments, $2 trillion in
Federal taxes, and $1 trillion in State and local taxes. We are looking
at people who are working. Let me also indicate that the economic
opportunities for these individuals are enormous.
One thing I want to indicate is that it is not DACA that is driving
people. The surge is being driven by the violence in El Salvador and
other places, not by DACA. It is also being driven by wrong-headed
State legislators or State officials like the Texas attorney general,
Ken Paxton, who threatened a lawsuit, which he did, if they didn't stop
DACA.
When they stopped DACA, they put millions of young people in
jeopardy. They even ignored the tragedy of Alonso, who lost his life
coming down to Houston, in Harris County, to save people who were
suffering from Hurricane Harvey.
Which of us on this floor went down to try and save anyone? Who
sacrificed and lost their lives? What about the millions of young
people who are doctors and lawyers and teachers in our districts or the
paramedic whom I met in my roundtable discussion who is saving lives
every day?
These false premises are killing us because we are the land of laws
and the land of immigrants. I am reminded of the Statue of Liberty.
Let's pass this bill. Let's grant TPS. Let's be Americans who love
this country and value the Constitution, the Declaration of
Independence, and the equality of all people.
Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the Committees on the Judiciary
and on Homeland Security, and a representative of a state on the
southern border, I rise in strong support of the rule governing debate
of H.R. 6, the ``American Dream and Promise Act of 2019,'' and the
underlying legislation.
Today's debate and consideration of this bill is a historic step for
this vital piece of legislation.
The American Dream and Promise Act of 2019 establishes a roadmap to
U.S. citizenship for (1) immigrant youth and current or potential
holders of (a) temporary protected status (TPS) or (b) deferred
enforced departure (DED).
Today's vote is not the end of the work we have to do. It is the
beginning.
We are here on behalf of all of the Dreamers all across the country
and in each of our Congressional districts.
For example, in the Eighteenth Congressional District, there are
13,600 Dreamers eligible for DACA protections.
I have met with these individuals and heard the fear in their voices
as they speak about the jeopardy they feel as a result of their
unprotected status.
Just a few weeks ago, I met with recipients of the Deferred Action
for Childhood Arrivals--our nation's dreamers. This was one of many
events I have had that engages residents of Houston.
It is through these events that I meet advocates on this vital issue.
I think of my good friend Cesar Espinoza, whom I know through a group
called FIEL.
Cesar has a younger brother and a younger sister. His brother was
able to get citizenship because as a minor, his citizenship was
automatic when his mother became a citizen.
But Cesar himself is a recipient of DACA and so is his sister.
With the President's rescission of this program, he has placed in
peril families like Cesar's family.
The Dream and Promise Act would add certainty to the lives of these
individuals so that they can pursue their lives without having to
account for a circumstances placed on them by their parents.
Today's vote represents the first time that the Dream Act is being
considered.
It is the product of years of determination, grit, and perseverance.
The bill is supported by the business community as well as human
rights groups.
The DREAM Act is supported by traditionally conservative groups like
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the CATO institute.
The bill is one of the most significant pieces of pro-immigrant
legislation to be voted on--and passed--in years, and many advocates
across the country spent the day watching the progress of the bill
through committee.
When we considered this bill in the Judiciary Committee, it was a
markup that lasted over 8 hours.
During that time, we did not consider any legislation that would
strengthen the bill consistent with its charge to bring peace of mind
and security to our nation's Dreamers.
Instead, we sat there as members of the Committee from the other side
of the aisle, tried to deny the country and the nation's hundreds of
thousands of Dreamers the peace of mind that they are owed.
Under the Dream Act, undocumented immigrants who were under the age
of 18 upon arrival in the United States and have lived in the country
for at least four years, would be eligible for a conditional permanent
resident (CPR) status if they are enrolled in secondary school or have
a high school diploma, equivalent, or industry recognized credential,
and pass a background check.
Under this bill, 1.8 million immigrants will be immediately eligible
for this CPR status.
Ensuring a path to earned citizenship is a non-negotiable principle
for me and the sine qua non of meaningful immigration reform
legislation.

[[Page H4279]]

Indeed, providing a path to earned access to citizenship has been a
central feature of every comprehensive immigration reform bill I have
co-sponsored or sponsored in the Congress since 2007 when I became
Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and
introduced the ``Save America Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act,
(H.R. 1525),'' which I have reintroduced in each succeeding Congress.
Like H.R. 6, Section 501 of my legislation provides a path to earned
legalization status to those undocumented immigrants who have resided
in the United States for 5 years and meet other eligibility
requirements.
Madam Speaker, as we stand today on the precipice of passing the
American Dream and Promise Act of 2019, I am thinking of the hundreds
of thousands of young immigrants whose lives will be changed for the
better by keeping our promise to them, so they can realize their dreams
and making America better, stronger, and more prosperous.
And at this moment, I am thinking of Alonso Guillen, an heroic
DREAMER who lived in my congressional district, and who came to the
United States from Mexico as a child and died when his boat capsized
while he was rescuing survivors of the flooding caused by Hurricane
Harvey in the Houston area.
That is the type of courage, honor, and commitment to service we are
talking when we speak of DREAMERS.
Madam Speaker, Title I of H.R. 6, the Dream Act of 2019, contains
provisions regarding relief for immigrant youth.
Title II of the bill, American Promise Act of 2019, contains
provisions related to persons eligible Temporary Protected Stats (TPS)
or Deferred Enforcement Departure; the third and final title contains
general provisions that apply to both Titles I & II).
Madam Speaker, I support H.R. 6 because it keeps America's word to
the more than 800,000 young people we asked to come out of the shadows
and walk proudly and unashamedly as legitimate members of the American
community.
The legislation does this by providing conditional permanent resident
(CPR) status and a roadmap to lawful permanent resident (LPR) status
and, eventually, earned U.S. citizenship for immigrant youth who
entered the U.S. before age 18, have four or more years of residency,
and graduated from high school (or the equivalent).
H.R. 6 also provides an opportunity to apply for LPR status for
people who currently have or who may be eligible for TPS or DED and who
have three or more years of residency.
Madam Speaker, individuals who are eligible for protection under the
bill have lived in the United States for much of their lives; the
average Dreamer came to the United States at the age of 8, while the
average TPS- or DED-eligible person arrived in 1997.
Without permanent protections such as those in H.R. 6, these
immigrants' and their families' futures in the United States--as well
as the fiscal and economic contributions they make--are at risk.
Passing this legislation is the right thing to do and now is the time
to do it; in fact, it is long overdue.
I am mindful also Madam Speaker that in addition to helping restore
America's reputation as the most welcoming nation on earth, the
legislation the House will pass also positions America to better
compete and win in the global economy of the 21st century.
According to expert studies, including one by the Center for American
Progress, ending deferred action for childhood arrivals would result in
a loss of $460.3 billion from the national GDP over the ensuing decade
and would remove an estimated 685,000 workers from the nation's economy
and workforce at a time when more, not fewer, workers are desperately
needed.
And 10 states, including my home state of Texas, would stand to lose
more than $8 billion annually in state GDP.
Madam Speaker, immigrants eligible for protection under H.R. 6 are
part of Texas's social fabric.
Texas is home to 386,300 immigrants who are eligible for protection
under the Dream and Promise Act, 112,000 of whom reside in Harris
County.
These individuals live with 845,300 family members and among those
family members, 178,700 are U.S.-born citizen children.
Dreamers in Texas who are eligible for protection under the bill
arrived in the United States at the average age of 8.
TPS- and DED-eligible immigrants in Texas who would be eligible for
protection under H.R. 6 have on average lived in the United States
since 1996.
Immigrants eligible for the Dream and Promise Act own 43,500 homes in
Texas and pay $340,500,000 in annual mortgage payments.
Eligible immigrants in Texas and their households contribute
$2,234,800,000 in federal taxes and $1,265,200,000 in state and local
taxes each year.
Annually, these households generate $10,519,000,000 in spending power
in Texas and help power the national economy.
Madam Speaker, during general debate on H.R. 6, I will have more to
discuss about the salient features of this long overdue legislation
that fulfills the American promise that all of its residents who share
our values and respect for the Constitution and laws have an
opportunity to realize their dreams.
But in the limited time I have now, let me highlight some of the more
important provisions of the American Dream and Promise Act.
H.R. 6 helps young persons in the following ways:
1. Extends the length of conditional permanent resident (CPR) status
from eight to ten years to give applicants more time to fulfill
requirements;
2. Stays the removal of minors who are not yet eligible for relief
but may become eligible in the future and who temporarily unenroll from
school;
3. Permits people with CPR to obtain legal permanent resident (LPR)
status without satisfying the employment, military, or educational
tracks if their deportation would cause ``hardship'' to themselves or
immediate family members (instead of ``extreme hardship'');
4. Includes apprenticeship programs as a qualifying education to
obtain CPR status;
5. Eliminates the costly medical examination for applicants;
6. Establishes a fee ceiling of $495 for immigrant youth applying for
CPR status;
7. Clarifies that people with CPR can access professional,
commercial, and business licenses;
8. Permits people with CPR who obtain a certificate or credential
from an area career and technical education school to obtain LPR
status; and
9. Updates the criminal background bars and inadmissibility
requirements.
Additionally, H.R. 6 provides LPR status to CPR holders who (1) serve
in the uniformed services for two years; (2) complete two years at or
obtain a degree from an institution of higher education; or (3) work 75
percent of the time in CPR.
Another important feature of this legislation is that makes it easier
for states to provide in-state tuition to immigrant students and
establishes that CPR-holders are eligible for federal loans, work
study, services, and grants.
I mentioned earlier that we sat through a marathon session of the
Judiciary Committee.
That's because some on the committee could not bring themselves to
see our nation's Dreamers as anything other than criminals.
They see the act that brought them here with their parents as nothing
more than a crime.
Indeed if you did not know better, and you listened to the parade of
horribles put forth by the other side.
You would think that if we merely deported all of our nation's
Dreamers--hardworking young people seeking to make their lives in
America--all crime in the nation would stop.
In Committee we heard all sorts of dramatic stories. We heard of gang
members who would feel liberated to take advantage of this program.
We heard this was amnesty. We heard that this bill perpetrates a
crisis. We heard this would enable a humanitarian crisis. We have heard
that this legislation was a disgrace.
We heard horror stories of criminals who would take the Dream Act to
serve their own ends.
This is wrong.
They cannot see that these children are American in every way except
for that piece of paper.
For persons with TPS or DED status, the American Dream and Promise
Act provides much needed relief.
First, H.R. 6 provides LPR status for people with TPS or DED (and
those who were eligible but did not apply) who apply within three years
from the date of enactment if they (1) had at least three years of
continuous residence (as well as residence since the date required the
last time that the person's nation of origin was designated) and (2)
were eligible for or had (a) TPS on September 25, 2016, or (b) DED on
September 28, 2016.
This protection covers nationals of 13 countries: El Salvador,
Guinea, Haiti, Honduras, Liberia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Sierra Leone,
Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.
I believe similar protections should be extended to Guatemalan
nationals in our country, which is why I will soon reintroduce the
``Continue American Safety Act,'' which extends TPS status to Guatemala
and I look forward to working with my colleagues to achieve this
outcome.
Second, H.R. 6 classifies people with TPS or DED as inspected and
admitted for the purposes of Immigration & Nationality Act (INA)
section 245(a), making it easier to obtain LPR status through existing
channels (e.g., a family-based petition).
Third, H.R. 6 stays the removal or deportation of an individual while
an application is pending.

[[Page H4280]]

Fourth, the American Dream and Promise Act establishes a fee ceiling
of $1,140 for people with TPS or DED applying for LPR status.
Fifth, the legislation provides greater transparency by requiring the
Secretary of the Homeland Security (DHS) to provide an explanation for
and report within three days of publishing notice to terminate TPS
designation for certain nationals.
I have one the gentleman from North Carolina remarked on the bill--he
indicated that legislation with great names does not make it great
legislation and we should not pass a bill that does not have a chance
of passage in the Senate.
We cannot let the fact that this House of Representatives has passed
countless pieces of legislation and that they have gone to the
graveyard in the Senate.
Acting for the people, in order to deliver a better deal, House
Democrats have passed legislation to strengthen our democracy, with
H.R. 1, the For the People Act.
We have passed legislation to end anti-LGBT discrimination with H.R.
5, the Equality Act.
We have passed a nonbinding resolution to pass the full Mueller
Report.
We have passed legislation to reauthorize the Violence Against Women
Act, landmark legislation which--through policy reforms, interstate
cooperation and grant allocation--has been pivotal in providing a
national response to protecting half of the population.
And, as this week dawned, it did so with flags at half-staff, a
recognition of the 12 people who were shot and killed in just the
latest incident of mass shootings.
That is why the House of Representatives passed H.R. 8, the first
piece of gun safety legislation, the first piece of gun safety
legislation to pass the House in a quarter-century.
Put simply we cannot accept Senate inaction as a reason not to do
anything.
The Senate must act for the American People, in not just passing the
bills I just mentioned above, but also passing the Dream and Promise
Act. Indeed, in a recent public opinion poll, protections for Dreamers
received 83% support from Americans.
Madam Speaker, H.R. 6 is exceptional legislation and a welcome
development but is not a substitute for undertaking the comprehensive
reform and modernization of the nation's immigration laws supported by
the American people.
Only Congress can do that and passage of H.R. 6 shows that this House
has the will and is up to the challenge.
Comprehensive immigration reform is desperately needed to ensure that
Lady Liberty's lamp remains the symbol of a land that welcomes
immigrants to a community of immigrants and does so in a manner that
secures our borders and protects our homeland.
Madam Speaker, let us build on the historic legislation that is the
American Dream and Promise Act and seize the opportunity to pass
legislation that secures our borders, preserves America's character as
the most open and welcoming country in the history of the world, and
will yield hundreds of billions of dollars in economic growth.
I urge all Members to support the rule governing debate of H.R. 6 and
the underlying bill.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I would remind the gentlewoman
from Texas that, as Americans, we also have rule of law. We stand for
that and have wanted to fix the DACA situation, not just give a green
light to continue a problem on the border that we are continually
seeing.
There are problems with this bill. It is not a perfect bill and
doesn't fit, in many ways. We are pointing that out. The pride that we
take in that is not that we are seeing something broken. It is the
pride that we need to fix something in this. We want to see these
recipients be here and be able to participate in a legal fashion.
The legal immigration system is being overwhelmed by the illegal
population coming across, which we are not fixing, and don't say that
we are because we are not. Nothing has come to this floor, and it
happens every day.
Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Cline), another member of the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. CLINE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for her
remarks. She alluded to a number of reforms to our legal immigration
process, and yes, I stand ready to work with the gentlewoman on those
issues, but none of the legal reforms that are necessary to balance
this legislation are in this bill.
In fact, this bill is called the American Dream and Promise Act, but
if we are looking for reforms that will secure our border, we are
dreaming. The only promise being kept is the promise to put people who
are here illegally ahead of legal immigrants in line for citizenship.
It is a grave disappointment and a violation of this document, the
Constitution of the United States.
The American people might think, when tuning in, hey, great, we are
finally addressing immigration, so maybe we will find a way to secure
our borders. But this bill has no language to secure our borders, no
language to build the wall, no language to help children and families
in terrible conditions at the border, no language to reform our asylum
programs or our visa programs to make them more efficient, and no
language to stop the thousands of caravans of illegals crossing over
the border, over 5,000 each and every day.
Instead, it does the exact opposite. It incentivizes illegal
immigration. It incentivizes the dangerous journey that these families
are taking.
We have heard a lot from the other side about individuals here
illegally who are achieving, but we can cite every individual who is
currently facing enormous danger, children facing enormous danger on
this journey to the border, one in three women who are facing sexual
assault on this journey to the border, families right now who are
deciding whether or not to put their children at risk of death by
marching up to the United States because they are hoping that there is
an incentivized program like this in place when they get here.
We need to take action to control our border. We will never stop the
flow of illegal immigration coming into this country until we get
serious about securing the border and until we follow through on the
enforcement mechanisms that Congress has and continues to put in place.
Until we do that, human trafficking, drug smuggling, and cartels will
continue to thrive.
This bill is unfair to immigrants who have obeyed the law to enter
our country legally. America welcomes all who are coming to our Nation
who respect the rule of law and want to contribute to our society.
Unfortunately, they will be left to wait while USCIS attempts to
process the millions of applications that today's legislation would
authorize.
It creates a system that is ripe for fraud and abuse. It includes a
laundry list of unverifiable documents that can be used to obtain green
cards.
Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in this legislation that fixes what is
wrong with our immigration laws. This is the wrong way to go. I hope
that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will quit playing
politics with people's lives and work with this side of the aisle to
fix our broken immigration system and replace it with a system based on
merit.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Johnson), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I thank the bold and courageous women of the
House of Representatives with the Democratic Party for their strong
hearts, minds, and leadership in pressing the action for passage of
H.R. 6, which will help millions of people--men, women, and children--
who by all accounts are already Americans.
They pay taxes, serve in our military, and attend our schools. They
should not be dehumanized by calling them illegals or illegal aliens.
Don't stereotype them as drug dealers, rapists, and murderers. They are
real people contributing to America's greatness.
My district alone has over 7,000 constituents who would benefit from
these Dream, TPS, and DED reforms. These are Americans whom the system
is failing, people who grew up on the foundational American principle
that if you work hard, you can improve the future for your children.
And they do work hard.
But Republican inaction and hostility have put their American Dream
at risk, and they face deportation to a country they have never known.
My Republican colleagues should recognize that this is a good bill.
It is a necessary bill. It is a bill that will improve the country we
all love. Have a heart. Pass H.R. 6.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, the ranking
member, for yielding.
Listening to the debate here, the first thing that I think was missed
in

[[Page H4281]]

this discussion was the subject of amnesty. This bill is clearly
amnesty, and it is amnesty for a large chunk of people, whether they do
the math at 2 million, 2.2 million, 2.7 million, or whatever that
number may be north of that. Whenever we have had amnesty in this
country, it has always been a lot more than was calculated.
I recall those days back in 1986 when Ronald Reagan let me down. He
only did it twice in 8 years, but this was one time.
I watched the debate in the House and the Senate on whether to grant
amnesty to roughly a million people. All along, I believed that the
wisdom of the House and Senate would prevail, and they would understand
that amnesty destroys the rule of law.
I listened carefully, and the debate went the other way. The bill was
sent to the President's desk.
But I was confident that Ronald Reagan would see the principle and
protect the rule of law and veto the amnesty act. Well, we all know he
signed it that day in 1986. He regretted it after that, as did many of
his Cabinet members, but that was a big mistake.
This is an amnesty bill, and it goes a long way toward the
destruction of immigration law. When you send out an advertisement that
if you can get into America, you get to stay in America, people are
going to keep coming here. It doesn't stop until they have to go back
home again to tell those folks whom they had recently left that they
didn't get to stay in America, to discourage the rest of them.
Here is an example: In a briefing from Francis Cissna, the recently
retired Director of USCIS, he gave us these numbers. He said of 100
percent of those who apply for asylum, there will be 60 percent who
show up for their asylum hearings. That surprised me. I thought the
number would be maybe 95 percent that wouldn't show up. Sixty percent
show up; 40 percent do not.
Of the 60 percent, 10 percent get asylum. That amounts to 6 percent
of the whole. Forty percent don't show up. Fifty-four percent then get
assigned a deportation hearing, and they don't show up at all.
When you add 40 percent, 54 percent, and 6 percent, that is 100
percent of them who get to stay in America.
I recall a night when I was in Serbia in the middle of that huge,
epic migration. I asked the chief of police, who was directing traffic,
loading trains to go off to Germany out of Serbia, when and why this
ever stops. The first thing he said was the international answer of,
``That is beyond my pay grade.'' But then, as I pressed him, he said it
only stops when the people receiving them stop receiving them.
That is the principle here. We have to decide what we are going to do
here. Whom are we going to say no to? I haven't heard anybody define,
especially on the other side, whom we might say no to. This is just the
people that we want to say yes to, or at least as far as the left wants
to say yes to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Aguilar). The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds
to the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. KING of Iowa. There is a report that, before the last census,
with an average 710,000 in a Member's congressional district, at least
six districts in California were comprised, figuratively, of illegal
aliens. That means that illegal aliens in California had more
representation in the United States Congress than any one of 23 States
that have less representation. That is something to keep in mind as
this debate moves on.
Mr. Speaker, I don't think this bill goes anywhere, but if it does,
it could be the destruction of the rule of law and the fracture of the
United States of America.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), a member of our Judiciary Committee.
Mr. CICILLINE. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
I rise in strong support of H.R. 6, the American Dream and Promise
Act.
This legislation will protect 2.5 million people as American as
everyone in this Chamber but for a piece of paper, young people who
came here as children, brought by their families to pursue the American
Dream. That is why we call them Dreamers.
They did what we would expect of any other good American. They worked
hard. They served in our communities. They served in our military. They
studied at our schools. They strengthened our communities.

{time} 1615

We had a hearing of examples of Dreamers, these young people who did
extraordinary things, who enriched the lives of their own communities,
who are scholars, community activists, teachers, doctors, and lawyers,
people making incredible contributions.
I have met with Dreamers in my home State, where 6,000 people will be
protected by this legislation. They are valued and productive members
of our community.
There is also protection in here for TPS designees. In the State of
Rhode Island, we have the largest Liberian community, who make
unbelievable contributions and live with such uncertainty.
We, of course, need comprehensive immigration reform, but protecting
Dreamers is first.
We have heard a lot of arguments about other problems with our
immigration system. We agree, but I haven't heard anyone say that these
young people don't deserve protection in this debate today.
This bill doesn't solve all the problems, but it solves three
specific problems: TPS, DED, and Dreamers. It is voting to give
protections to these young people.
This is a very powerful symbol of our patriotism and our love of our
country because we are a stronger and better America because of these
young people and because of the magnificent contributions of these
Dreamers. There is nothing more American than passing the Dream Act and
ending the uncertainty in the lives of these young people and
acknowledging they represent the best of America.
I wish everyone in this country could have watched that hearing of
just some examples of the differences these young people have made in
the lives of their communities.
Let's do the right thing. Let's pass this in a bipartisan way and
give certainty to the lives of these young people who know no other
country but this great country.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman, the
speaker, Mr. Cicilline. I agree with him that we need to fix this, but
this is not the way to fix this. There is a bipartisan way to fix this,
and this simply just gives a green light.
It is a powerful symbol. This bill is a very powerful symbol to those
who want to come here and know that there will be no consequence for
coming and will continue to overload our border. That is the symbolism
that comes from this bill today.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Grothman).
Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, our immigrants have always been our
future. Wave after wave of moral, patriotic, hardworking, and law-
abiding immigrants have kept America vibrant. Today, the majority party
intends to put another 2 to 3 million people on the path to
citizenship.
I think it is accurate to say that America does want some form of
relief for some DACA folks and some way to make them made legal, but
this bill would do a lot. This bill, in my mind, would ruin America.
First of all, I think America would want to restrict this bill to the
law-abiding, including law-abiding DACA folks. This bill does not do
that. You can commit two crimes and still be here. You can be on a list
of gang members and still be here.
As far as self-supporting, this bill doesn't begin to deal with the
problem of people who are already taking advantage of our generous
welfare safety net. They are going to be staying here under this bill.
Like I said, you can already be on a variety of public assistance
programs; it is not dealt with. You can be a bad role model for your
kids; it is not dealt with. You don't have to learn English.
People always say: Oh, all the DACA members all know English. That is
not true. You do not have to learn English and you are set on a path to
citizenship.

[[Page H4282]]

We can continue the divisive policy of having people who come here
illegally and once made legal get preferences over people who are here
native born.
I was in Texas last week, Mr. Speaker. As you know, we have over
100,000 people streaming across our border every month. The majority
party does nothing about this.
Yesterday, we passed another welfare bill continuing another, to a
large extent, failed welfare program, but we do nothing in that bill to
make sure the current welfare programs aren't being abused by illegal
or legal immigrants. That is what we should be focusing on at this
time.
A lot of people have been trying to destroy America over many years.
Go back 100 years, and people realized America is the light of the
world. America is the hope for civilization. If I wanted to destroy
America, I would craft a bill like this. I would craft a bill saying
that we have got people here on the welfare system, path to
citizenship; criminal background, path to citizenship; and we put these
folks ahead of so many wonderful, hardworking people who are trying to
do the system the right way and trying to come here legally.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Correa), who is a member of our Judiciary Committee.
Mr. CORREA. Mr. Speaker, if I may call your attention to this poster
here to my right. This is a photo of brave Americans out of Orange
County who have made the ultimate sacrifice since 9/11. Among them are
Navy SEAL Michael Monsoor, Army Ranger Sergeant Tyler Holtz, and right
here in the middle is a picture of Corporal Jose Angel Garibay, a
Dreamer and a marine without status who joined the Marine Corps and
made the ultimate sacrifice in 2003. Later on, he was given American
citizenship posthumously. This is a Dreamer, Jose Angel Garibay.
I want to also take a moment to talk about another Dreamer, Police
Officer Germain Martinez Garcia, who grew up in southern Illinois. In
the words of his police chief:

Germain is a part of our community. He's a good citizen.
He's a good person, and we need him.

He is a Dreamer.
Two other Dreamers are two brothers, John and James, who both grew up
in L.A. They are both Dreamers. They joined the U.S. Army last year,
and they are out in basic training right now. These two want nothing
more than to defend our country, and today's legislation will ensure
that these bothers, John and James, can come home to the United States
after serving our country.

Another Dreamer, Gloria, grew up in the center of my district, Santa
Ana. She is a Dreamer who attended Harvard and is now getting her Ph.D.
at Claremont University.
All these are Dreamers, and for the life of me, I don't understand
how these individuals do not add to the greatness of America.
Dreamers have been vetted. Dreamers are hardworking. They pay taxes;
they follow the law; and many, many of them are defending our country
all over the world.
Mr. Speaker, let's give Dreamers the opportunity to earn the American
Dream. I ask for a vote of ``aye'' on H.R. 6.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), who is a member of our committee.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I claim the time in opposition to this very flawed piece of
legislation here this afternoon. It is flawed in many ways.
First of all, it doesn't do anything to get more control at our
southern border. We have thousands of people streaming across that
border in various places on the border. It does nothing about that.
It does nothing to improve on our asylum system, which is very flawed
right now.
The drug cartels make huge amounts of money by the people who are
coming in illegally. They are told the magic words, which are basically
to say that they fear if they return to their country, so they are let
into our country.
They are put on a bus or they are put on a plane and shipped
somewhere around the country, to some city. They are given a court date
2 years out, 3 years out, 5 years out. Very seldom do they show up for
that court date, so they basically disappear into the population.
This legislation does nothing to reform our asylum laws or to protect
the American people. It does nothing to basically protect folks around
the world who are trying to come here the right way.
The DACA amnesty program which is being created here will allow
people to cut in front of the line for people who are trying to do it
the right way.
Not only does it not do things to improve the existing law--and it
certainly doesn't do it in a bipartisan manner--but it is dangerous,
and I will tell you why.
In the Judiciary Committee--I have been on that committee for many
years now--I offered an amendment. I think we all know that far too
many people are killed or injured in this country by drunk drivers, by
people who have, in some States they call it a DUI, in some States they
call it a DWI, driving, basically, impaired, either drugs or alcohol.
I offered a commonsense amendment which said, basically, that you
would not be eligible for this if you were convicted--not just that you
have driven, but you were convicted--of drunk driving and you either
killed a person or the person was seriously injured. Serious bodily
harm could be loss of an eye or a limb. Or, if you had multiple DUIs,
two or more DUIs, you wouldn't be eligible for these.
All the Republicans on the committee voted for it; all the Democrats
voted against it.
Mothers Against Drunk Driving, MADD, indicates that there are over
10,000 people killed every year in America by drunk drivers. Over
300,000 every year are injured by drunk drivers.
In my amendment, we are talking about people convicted of it. Mothers
Against Drunk Drivers indicates, for every time a person is convicted,
on average, they think they have probably driven drunk 80 times.
So we are allowing folks to be eligible for this program. All the
Democrats on the committee voted against this amendment that would have
basically made us safer in this country against drunk drivers. But they
refused to go along with that, so I think it is really dangerous to
pass it. It could have been much safer.
The people who are injured are our sons. They are our daughters,
wives, spouses, brothers, sisters, mothers, and fathers. But this bill
doesn't make them safer. It had an opportunity to do so, but all my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle voted against it.
That is just one reason why I think this is a very flawed bill, and I
would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.
We could, in a bipartisan manner, actually do something for these
Dreamers, these DACA folks, but Democrats said: No, we are not going to
do this bipartisan. We are going to ram this thing through.
It is really unfortunate because we could have done something good
for the country, but that is not what this bill does.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on each
side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California has 30\3/4\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Georgia has 20\1/4\ minutes
remaining.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer). The majority leader has been such a supporter of
Dreamers for these many years.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. More
than that, I thank her for the thousands of hours that she has put in
over the years in trying to address in a positive, constructive way our
broken immigration system and for her leadership in forging a bill that
is a step--just a step.
I want to thank Mr. Nadler, the chairman of the committee, for
ensuring that this bill came forward.

Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting here for a few minutes, and I have
heard a number of my Republican colleagues bemoaning the fact that we
could have done this in a bipartisan fashion and come with up with a
much better bill. Many of those folks who said that have

[[Page H4283]]

been serving here over the last 8 years in the majority, and we have
been pleading with them over those 8 years: Bring us a bill, a
bipartisan bill.
Mr. Speaker, as you so well know, you and Mr. Hurd, a Republican from
Texas, worked tirelessly in fashioning a bipartisan bill, and the
Republicans refused to bring it to the floor; although, in my view it
had a majority of votes on this floor.
Indeed, it was about to be petitioned out of the committee and
brought to the floor in a process that you can do that without the
committee's voting for it. Just short of the 218 votes necessary to do
that, the Republican leadership put all sorts of pressure to assure
that that bill was not discharged from the committee.
So spare me the crocodile tears about a bipartisan bill. We tried to
do a bipartisan bill. The Senate did a bipartisan bill in 2013, and we
pleaded for the Republicans to bring it to the floor, a bipartisan
Senate bill, and they refused, all the time saying the immigration
system was broken. But they refused to fix it.

{time} 1630

So, now they come to the floor, bemoaning the fact that a bipartisan
bill did not come forward. If they had intended to work on a bipartisan
bill, as the majority leader, I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, a
bipartisan bill would have come forward.
So sad, so unfortunate that that didn't happen.
Mr. Speaker, I want to read something:
``We're going to work something out that's going to make people happy
and proud.
``They''--referring to the Dreamers--``got brought here at a very
young age''--1, 2, 3 years of age.
``They've worked here. They've gone to school here. Some were good
students. Some have wonderful jobs. And they're in never-never land
because they don't know what's going to happen.''
Who said that? Donald Trump said it.
When did he say it? After he was elected, but before he was sworn in
as President of the United States.
I met with the President, along with a few others, at the White
House, and he said to us: ``Send us a bill,'' then he created the
problem we are confronting today. And he said: ``Congress, fix it, and
I will sign it.''
Well, today, Mr. Speaker, we are fixing it. And I hope that my
Republican colleagues would join us and that the President of the
United States would sign a bill which will take these folks out of
never-never land.
The bill we have on the floor today is called the American Dream and
Promise Act--the American dream and American promise.
We lift our lamp beside the golden door. That is what we have said to
the world. That dream is to see hard work rewarded with opportunity.
My father came here at the age of 32 in 1934, an immigrant from
Denmark. That promise is the commitment of our Founders and every
generation since to ensure that this Nation makes that dream a reality
for all.
Today, more than a million people who grew up in America don't know
any other home, yet they live in fear of being sent to a home they
never knew. They live in fear of being deported to countries they never
or barely knew.
These Dreamers, these yearners for justice and opportunity, deserve
to live without fear. They deserve to access the opportunities of
America that they have been helping to build already--a Nation of
immigrants, made great by immigrants.
This bill will remove that fear. It will give them the opportunity to
stay in the country they know and love and to know their hard work and
contributions will give them a chance to make it in America and that
they can give back by serving in our military or creating jobs or
working in their communities; that they can have a pathway to
citizenship, which is in their interest and in the interest of our
country.
This bill will keep the promise of our Founders and our forebears,
and it will keep the promise of policymakers from both sides of the
aisle who agree they should stay, along, I might add, with 86 percent
of the American people.
They are American in every sense. They are patriots and dreamers.
President Trump campaigned on a promise to help Dreamers--a promise
he broke. It was President Trump who created the crisis we now face by
rescinding the DACA program 2 years ago and allowing the Republican-
controlled House to stand in the way of a legislative solution.
Now, the Democrat-led House is taking action. With this bill, we
proclaim to the Senate and President: Take the advice of the American
people. Pass this bill.
For these Dreamers are, in all but a certificate of citizenship,
brothers and sisters.
One of them from my district, Gabby Hernandez, is here today, Mr.
Speaker, to watch us take this important vote. She arrived in this
country from El Salvador at the age of 4. She attended school in Prince
George's County, Maryland, which I represent, and she has been studying
these last few years to be a social worker and help people in our
community.
I hope we can give Dreamers like Gabby reassurance that their
country, America, will not abandon them.
In addition, this bill would also allow those who have been on
temporary protected status and deferred enforced departure to remain as
permanent residents.
One of them has a business in my district. He employs 40 people.
Forty families would be affected by his leaving. He has been here for
25 years. He is, in every sense, a member of our community.
These are people who fled a natural disaster and violence and were
welcomed into our country as refugees. Here, they have helped build a
stronger community and have participated in building our economy.
I am proud to represent a strong community of Liberians in my
district, many of whom fled war and disease outbreak and built new
lives here. We should not allow them to be uprooted from their homes a
second time.
Some of them are here today in the gallery as well.
Let's show them. Let's show them that we stand together with them and
cherish their contributions to America.
Whether we are Irish or Danish or Italian or Jews or Poles or
Germans, all who came here in great numbers immigrated to this country
and have made us great.
This bill is not perfect. No bill is perfect. But it is a step, a
very important step, a down payment on fulfilling that promise.
But change happens most often in steps, and today the Democrat-led
House is taking that step forward by keeping our promise to Dreamers.
I want to thank Lucille Roybal-Allard, Nydia Velazquez, Yvette
Clarke, Jerry Nadler, and--yes, once again--Zoe Lofgren for all the
work that they have done to get us to a place where we have a fair
bill--not amnesty, a fair bill for America.
I hope my Republican colleagues will join us in voting for this bill.
Together, let's send a message of inclusion and acceptance of these
Dreamers, whose dreams are the same as ours, whose patriotism is the
same as ours, and whose Nation is the same as ours.
Vote ``aye.'' Vote for America.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from
references to occupants of the gallery.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate the majority leader coming down. It
is amazing to me, though, that as we come down and talk about this
bill, if there really was a desire to have a bipartisan bill, then
maybe we would have brought the bill that actually did get close, as
the gentleman did bring up last Congress, and actually ask some of
those cosponsors on the Republican side who were sponsoring it last
time to be a part, who have said they have been froze out.
Let's face reality. So spare me the discussion on getting a
bipartisan bill and the disdain for it and saying that this bill
actually helps.
This is a bill written for a promise, as was just said. Let's, at
least, be honest about why it was written and the fact that it will not
help the situation on the border and, frankly, is not going to help us
get a bill passed, because this will not pass because, as the President
has said, he wants to see some security attached to this, so that we
have a safe and secure legal immigration system.

[[Page H4284]]

Mr. Speaker, I would agree with him. Spare me those discussions
because that didn't happen here, as is painfully obvious.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Yoho).
Mr. YOHO. Mr. Speaker, I have the utmost respect for the majority
leader.
What I see as a problem here, that we see over and over again, is
finger pointing.
Yes, we did have the majority and the Republican Party didn't do
anything. But the Democrats had the majority back in President Obama's
first 2 years; they did nothing. But fingers get pointed. Nothing gets
done.
I rise today in opposition to this bill, but that is not to say I am
against legal immigration. In fact, I don't believe anyone in this
Chamber or up in the gallery, even though we can't reference them, is
against legal immigration.
I have repeatedly stated that I want to find a solution for the
Dreamers, those kids who, through no fault of their own, were brought
to the United States as children, illegally.
I support providing a method for those who have registered under the
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, to obtain
legal status. However, this must only be done in coordination with
measures completely fixing our Nation's broken border.
We have to have border security and the enforcement of current
immigration law or we can't go forward, because a vacuum is turned on
and more people will come.
Without enhancing border security and addressing the loopholes in our
immigration system, this bill simply encourages more illegal
immigration.
There is a cause-and-effect process that does occur. If borders are
open, they are overrun, and immigration laws aren't enforced. Guess
what? There is more illegal immigration.
There is a crisis at our southwest border, and this year we have seen
apprehensions of people illegally entering at the border increasing
every month.
For instance, in January of 2019, there were approximately 49,000; in
April of 2019, 99,000. The numbers are going to continue to go up
because the word is out, as Mr. Collins said, if you get to the U.S.
southwest border, you will get amnesty.
That is unfortunate. The 99,000 in April are only the crossings that
we know about.
Let's look at why this is a crisis. It is because the previous
administration created an illegal program called DACA.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from
Florida an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. YOHO. It has created a problem in Congress.
What we have to do, if my colleagues on the other side are serious
about finding a fix for this problem, for our broken immigration
system: Let's work together and agree that, without border security,
this will not work.
Let's fix this broken system once and for all. Let's do what is best
for America because, if we do what is best for America, is that not
best for the immigrants, too?
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Garcia), a valued member of our Judiciary Committee.
Ms. GARCIA of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank our chair, our leadership,
and, particularly, Nancy Pelosi for making sure that this bill was a
priority bill.
For me, I have dedicated a great part of my life in public service to
helping immigrants who come to the United States in search of a
prosperous and dignified life.
Today, I am honored to participate in this historic day in the House
of Representatives.
Since 2001, when the DREAM Act was first conceived, Dreamers have
waited.
In 2012, DACA enabled eligible young adults to work lawfully, attend
school, and contribute to society without the constant fear of
deportation.
DACA, however, does not provide a path to citizenship, and it leaves
out a huge number of deserving Dreamers.
Now, in 2019, they are still waiting. They are Americans in waiting.
Right now, Dreamers live in fear of being deported to countries they
may never have known, don't remember, or don't know at all, countries
with which they have little or no personal connection.
And, because of their status, most Dreamers have never left the
United States, never having had the opportunity to know their places of
origin and never knowing any other place to call home other than the
American communities in which they grew up. Some don't even know
another language other than English.

Opponents of this bill fail to realize that it is not just about the
Dreamers. It is also their families that would be harmed by mass
deportations. It is their employers who would lose key members of their
workforce. It is their communities who would lose vital members of
their community.
It bears repeating: Dreamers are American in every way except on
paper. In their hearts, in their minds, and in their souls, they are
Americans. They are Americans in waiting.
Many have been in this country for decades, becoming business owners,
employers, and homeowners.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
As the majority leader gave his remarks a few moments ago, I was
reminded that, in December of 2010, I was in this House of
Representatives and, during a lameduck session, the House of
Representatives had, at that time, a sizable Democratic majority. They
had lost the majority in the 2010 election, so it was the waning hours
of the Democratic majority, and they passed what was then known as
Senator Durbin's DREAMer bill here in the House of Representatives.

{time} 1645

It went over to the Senate, and Democrats had a 59-41 majority in the
United States Senate, and the Dreamer bill failed to achieve cloture,
not because it was blocked by Republicans. Three Republicans voted with
the then-majority Democrats to move the bill along. Senator Lugar, no
longer with us, Senator Murkowski, who is still with us, and Senator
Bennett from Utah, voted in favor of moving that bill along.
Five Democrats voted against cloture, and that was the reason why, in
the waning days of President Obama's first 2 years, as the Democratic
majority was winding down its term, that that bill did not pass.
But this bill before us today--and I felt so compelled to come and
talk about this because we have a serious problem in the lower Rio
Grande Valley sector on our Texas-Mexico border. There are parts of
that border where there is not a single stick of barrier and, as a
consequence, the number of people coming over--you have read the
headlines, you have heard the statistics that have been talked about
here today, 100,000 a month.
I serve on the Committee on Energy and Commerce. We have the Office
of Refugee Resettlement under our jurisdiction in the Health
Subcommittee. The men and women there do a tremendous job. They do
everything we ask.
I visited one of their facilities last week, Casa Padre, down in
Brownsville, Texas; 1,380 children under their care. That number has
stayed fairly constant since my previous visit last July. They get some
kids in, they move some kids out, and it is a steady state.
But at the border station in McAllen, it is a different story. They
have no control over how many come in.
Yes, the law says that within 72 hours--it is purely a processing
center--they are to move, particularly children, out of their center
and off to the OOR facilities. But if there is no place to receive them
then they cannot. And OOR, by law, cannot receive more children than
they are allowed to receive.
They closed the surge facility up in Tornillo by El Paso during the
summer, so there is no place else to go.
I have got to tell you, the men and women who work for the Customs
and Border Patrol in the State of Texas in the lower Rio Grande Valley
sector, overwhelmed is not a strong enough word. They are burnt out.
They have been taking care of so many people for so long, and they are
asking, Where is the United States Congress? Why will we not reform the
asylum laws that would allow us to get on top of this situation?

[[Page H4285]]

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Stanton), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. STANTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 6,
the American Dream and Promise Act of 2019.
For so many, this day is a long time coming. It would not be possible
without so many amazing people and organizations, including in my home
State of Arizona, who never stopped fighting, who never gave up hope on
this dream.
We are here today to pass a bill that will provide permanent
protections and a pathway to citizenship for our Dreamers, a solution
that is long overdue, one that will lift up 2 million people across our
Nation. For many, giving them a permanent place in the only home, the
only country that they have ever known.
But this bill does more than the right thing. It does a smart thing.
Make no mistake, this is an economic stimulus bill. The economic gains
in communities across the country will be significant, and fewer stand
to benefit more than my community.
The Phoenix metro area ranks among the top areas that will experience
real economic benefit from the passage of this bill. When we bring
stability to eligible immigrants, we bring stability to our local
economies as well.
The American Dream and Promise Act of 2019 is a case of doing both
the right thing for people and doing the right thing for our economy.
Dreamers are an integral part of our community, our neighbors, our
coworkers, our friends. They are woven into the social and economic
fabric of our entire region, and we have a responsibility to make sure
that they can continue to contribute and participate fully without
fear.
When our Dreamers succeed, our communities will be stronger.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Mucarsel-Powell), a member of our committee.
Ms. MUCARSEL-POWELL. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 6,
the American Dream and Promise Act of 2019.
Almost half of the people in my district were born in a country other
than the United States, including myself. I did not have the great
privilege of being born into this incredible Nation. But my story is
not unique. My story, and every immigrant's story, is the American
story. It is who we are as a country.
Dreamers, DED holders, TPS, and DACA recipients, are Americans in
every single way but on paper; and it is time that we change that.
Protecting these Americans is not only the right thing to do, but it
also makes economic sense.
In my district alone, Dream and Promise households contribute over
$53 million in Federal taxes and have a spending power of over $271
million. These Americans are our friends, our neighbors, and our
coworkers. They are teachers, doctors, farmers. They represent our
Nation's commitment to hard work.
To every Dreamer, DED holder, TPS and DACA recipient with us here and
across the country, I want you to know, we see you. We hear you. Your
fight is our fight.
Today, we will pass the American Dream and Promise Act of 2019 and
give all these Americans the protections that they deserve.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, we heard earlier some comments from the
other side about, gee, what could have been done, and the desire for a
bipartisan agreement on things. And yet, I know since President Trump
came into office, he offered a deal to work out legalization for folks
that had been granted DACA, and that offer was slapped down.
So it is interesting to hear now, after the opportunity did present
itself in the last Congress, with Republicans in control in the House
and Senate, and the President, wanting to work something out in a
bipartisan manner, now, we hear, oh, we wanted it bipartisan all along.
Well, a problem with a self-governing nation is that when people
abandon the rule of law in that self-governing nation, it is not going
to remain self-governing that much longer.
What has made America strong was that--one of the things--that nobody
was above the law. That included Presidents, it included most
everybody. There were exceptions.
But as I have continued to say for a number of years, we should
seal--not seal, but we should control the border, get it secured,
continue to give over a million visas a year. Fine. Most generous
country in the world when it comes to allowing access, ingress and
egress. Continue that, but control the border.
And once the border is controlled, we can work out about what to do
about the people that came in illegally. We can work that out.
Some try to slam Republicans and say, oh, you must hate Hispanics.
They don't know our hearts. They don't know my heart.
The huge majority of Hispanics I know, they love God, they are
devoted to their family, and they have an incredibly hard work ethic. I
think those are three things, three components that help, really, make
America a great country, the greatest I believe in the world. We need
more of that. That is a great thing. But the immigration has to be
legal.
Now, this bill, though, we had a rule shoved through, no amendments
were going to be allowed. Not only is this not going to be a bipartisan
effort to work out an agreement from both sides, we are slamming this
through. We are not letting any amendments.
And there were clearly problems with the bill. For example, my
amendment would have helped stop gang members from being given
legalization. No. No. That got voted down.
And not only was the amendment voted down, under the bill, the
Secretary cannot consider the fact that we have information in our
database that clearly shows that someone is a gang member. Oh, no.
Not only that, the Secretary, under this bill, is prohibited from
getting help to go through and review evidence of who is a gang member
and who isn't. That would mean hundreds of thousands of people would
have to be considered by the Secretary individually.
That is no mistake. They knew the Secretary could not do that. So
they were going to get as many gang members in as can possibly come in.
And there will be disputes over who came in when. That is an ongoing
issue.
But if a gang member is denied under this program, then all the other
applicants, will have to pay a fee that will pay for the gang member's
lawyer to sue in Federal court.
Look, it is clear what is going on. One party thinks their future as
the only party, as the majority party, will be to get as many felons
voting as possible and get as many people in here beholden to the
Democratic Party, legally, illegally, whatever.
But the tragedy continues to go on at the border. Every time we
mention legalization, amnesty, DACA, Dreamers, all of those things, the
Border Patrol made clear, people flood in illegally.
Let's do the right thing. Let's vote ``no'' on this and work
something out when the border is secure.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Escobar), a member of our Judiciary Committee.
Ms. ESCOBAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 6,
the American Dream and Promise Act of 2019.
This bill would provide Dreamers, TPS holders, and DED recipients
with the relief and certainty that they and our country need in order
to thrive.
I would like to congratulate the architects of this bill,
Representatives Roybal-Allard, Velazquez, and Clarke, who worked so
tirelessly, as well as our Judiciary Committee Chairman Nadler, and our
Immigration and Citizenship Subcommittee Chairwoman Lofgren for the
tireless work that they put into this.
This bill has the potential to help hundreds of thousands of
hardworking individuals who are American in every way except on paper.
I am so proud that Texas has the second highest Dreamer population in
the Nation, including the more than 9,000 Dreamers in the safe border
community of El Paso, Texas.

[[Page H4286]]

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle vacillate between
arguments intended to stall this legislation that range from get in
line, to build a wall, to painting all undocumented immigrants as
dangerous criminals that Americans should fear. One of my colleagues
even said that this bill would destroy America.
I would like to remind them that America is a nation of immigrants.
Dreamers, TPS holders, and DED recipients are our friends, neighbors,
and colleagues. Some have even bravely served in the military, and
others are pillars within communities across the Nation.
They have built good lives here, started families, created small
businesses, employed thousands of people, paid their taxes, made our
country better.

{time} 1700

I stand with Dreamers and TPS holders and will do all I can to ensure
that they are shielded from deportation and have a pathway to
citizenship.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to be on the right side of history
and support this bill.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill).
Mr. HILL of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia
for yielding time.
Mr. Speaker, it is sad that I rise today in opposition to H.R. 6. It
brings me no pleasure, for I support an equitable solution for our
Nation's Dreamer population, but this bill goes well beyond that kind
of a balanced, equitable solution and, in fact, puts illegal
immigration ahead of legal immigration.
While we are a nation of immigrants, it is true, we are a nation of
laws as well. Once again, the majority has failed to find common ground
on this topic in this House.
Last year at this time we worked mightily, when in the majority, to
try to find common ground, with Bob Goodlatte's effort of last summer,
our former chairman of the Judiciary Committee. He, too, could not find
full bipartisan common ground, and barely common ground among
Republicans, but common ground we must find, and this bill, Mr.
Speaker, is not that.
One example of why: legal Dreamers. These are kids of work permit
holders in America from countries like India and China who can't get
green cards due to arbitrary country caps in our immigration laws.
Their kids have to self-deport when they turn 18 years old.
Why aren't these kids being dealt with and protected? Their parents
followed the rules, came to the United States the right way with a
legal work permit, and yet with this bill, we are going to reward those
who came illegally, through no fault of their own for the kids, and not
protect those who are here legally.
Mr. Speaker, that is not right.
Last year, House Republicans and the President offered equitable
solutions for Dreamers in exchange for much-needed asylum reforms,
family unification at the border, and border security funds, but,
sadly, as noted, the floundering majority in this House can't find that
compromise, can't find that common ground.
In my view, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6 is an insincere bill with no chance
of being signed into law.
Mr. Speaker, I call on you to stop the messaging bills and negotiate
with Republicans in the minority to fix our broken immigration system.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the American
Dream and Promise Act, to stand with the thousands of Dreamers across
the country and in Oregon, Dreamers like Gustavo and Brenda, who are
living in and serving in our community.
Gustavo graduated from Forest Grove High School. He knew he was
ineligible for Federal student aid, yet he found a way to go to college
because he knows that education cannot be taken away from him.
Gustavo wrote: ``I have found my calling in the nonprofit work I do.
I am here to give back to the Latino community that believed in me and
helped me achieve my dream.''
Brenda is an educator in Hillsboro, Oregon. Last summer, her students
asked her: ``Are you coming back next year?'' Despite uncertainty about
her status, Brenda will watch her students graduate this Saturday, and
she hopes to continue supporting kids and families in the very same
school district from which she graduated.
It is long past time for Dreamers like Brenda and Gustavo, Americans
in every way except on paper, to live out of the shadows. Mr. Speaker,
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I inquire how much time is
remaining for both sides.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia has 7\1/4\
minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from California has 21\1/4\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee), my colleague.
Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding, but I also want to thank her for her tireless and
longstanding steadiness and leadership in support of our Dreamers.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6, which ensures the
Dreamers, temporary protected status recipients, and individuals with
deferred enforcement departure status are protected from deportation.
This bill will also establish a path for 2.5 million people to become
lawful permanent residents.
These young people have lived in the United States for decades and
have made a life for themselves and for their families.
Now, let me be clear. Dreamers, TPS, and DED recipients make our
Nation better. They are active members of our community and contribute
to our economy and make America a stronger nation.
I am so proud to represent so many Dreamers in my district. They are
American in every way except on paper, and it is beyond cruel to deport
them to countries many of them barely know.
By passing this bill today, House Democrats are maintaining the
promise of the American Dream to immigrants around the country.
It is time to protect our young people, recognize their love for
America, and finally help their dreams come true.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 6.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Frankel), a leader in this movement.
Ms. FRANKEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding and my
colleagues who have brought this before us today.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the American Dream and Promise Act.
As a teen, Daniella had a dream, a dream to be a lawyer. Her
grandmother had brought her here from Venezuela when she was a small
child, from a place she barely knew and never returned to.
Daniella learned English, made friends, studied hard, and became an
honors student. When she applied for a college scholarship, she learned
for the first time a family secret: she was undocumented.
Disqualified from this scholarship and with no money for college,
Daniella was devastated. Then, in 2012, like for hundreds of thousands
of young people, the doorway to opportunity opened. President Obama
issued the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals order. Daniella
enrolled in college and is now preparing for law school.
Mr. Speaker, today is a day that walls come down and we show the
world that dreams like Daniella's can come true.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Panetta), my colleague and neighbor in California.
Mr. PANETTA. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairwoman Lofgren for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today for the American Dream and Promise Act of
2019, but more importantly, for Dreamers and TPS recipients in my
community and all across our country.
As the Representative for the central coast of California, this bill
will affect not just the lives of Dreamers and TPS recipients, but the
lives of people throughout our communities.

[[Page H4287]]

In my district, there are nearly 20,000 Dreamers and thousands and
thousands of Salvadorian TPS recipients. These are men and women who
don't just live in my district; they work there; they go to school
there; they own homes there; they have families there. They are our
loved ones; they are our friends; they are our neighbors; they are our
employees. They are our community. They are our country.
As the grandson of immigrants who grew up in this Nation of
immigrants, I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, the Dreamers and TPS
recipients in my community are filled with the spirit of this country.
They don't just want to stay here; they want to contribute here. They
want to give back to this community and country that has given them so
much. They understand, they value, they yearn to fulfill their
obligations as Americans in this democracy.
Mr. Speaker, let's fulfill our obligation in Congress. Let's do our
job for our communities by giving our Dreamers, our TPS recipients that
opportunity for our country.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, ``Does anybody really want to throw out
good, educated, and accomplished young people who have jobs, some
serving in our military? Really?''
``They have been in our country for many years through no fault of
their own, brought in by parents at young age.''
Those were the words of a President Trump tweet on September 14,
2017, but, unfortunately, Donald Trump is a man of his last tweet.
Later, when a bipartisan group of Senators went to meet with the
President and present a viable bipartisan plan, he flew into a racist
rant and refused to act.
Only because of Federal court orders, consistently rejecting the
Trump administration arguments, do our Dreamers have any protection
today.
I have visited personally with these young people: a nurse, a
teacher, a county prosecutor, a key person in a small business, many
students. They are contributing to our communities, and America is
stronger for their presence. They are Americans in every sense except
for the documents that allow them to fully participate.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the
gentleman from Texas.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, if protection for our Dreamers is
terminated, all of us will lose.
A coalition of Texas businesses has estimated that Texas, alone, will
lose $6 billion in economic activity every year.
Mr. Speaker, let's provide our Dreamers the certainty of a clear path
to citizenship. Let's recognize them as the full-fledged Americans they
certainly are.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from
engaging in personalities toward the President.

Parliamentary Inquiries

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, derogatory statements toward the
President; also, that was impugning the integrity of the President. I
think that is much more beyond what was actually warned about, and I
would ask the Parliamentarian for a ruling on that.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is again reminding Members to
refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary inquiry would
say that that statement, as quoted, ``a racist rant'' is an attack on
the President, implying he is a racist. Is that not true? Which is
contrary--
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair continues to remind Members that
they should refrain from engaging in personalities toward the
President. The Chair will not issue an advisory opinion.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, is it not true that this House
is run on parliamentary language that is not consistent with what was
just used?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will continue to enforce the rules
of decorum.
The gentleman from Georgia is recognized.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia
continues that parliamentary inquiry, then, because it is an issue that
needs to be addressed. It should not have been said on this floor.
Mr. Speaker, with that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Judy Chu), a leader on this issue.
Ms. JUDY CHU of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of
H.R. 6, the Dream and Promise Act.
This is a historic day. H.R. 6 provides a long-awaited pathway to
citizenship for Dreamers, to temporary protected status recipients, and
deferred enforced departure status individuals.
A floor vote on this bill could not have come soon enough. More than
2.5 million immigrants currently living in fear that they would be torn
from their families could find relief in this bill.
Losing them would be disastrous to our communities, and it would harm
our economy. It would be devastating to so many. This includes 130,000
Asian American Dreamers and 9,000 TPS recipients who urgently need
relief from the President's xenophobic threats to tear apart immigrant
families.
The Dream and Promise Act unites us around the shared ideal that
anybody can live the American Dream if they are willing to work for it.
That is the lesson that has inspired generations of immigrants to build
this country, and that is the lesson we cannot afford to forget.
Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this bill.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, here we go again. Now, it may
not matter to anyone else here, but the Members who wear pins
understand that parliamentary language is important and what rules this
floor. ``Xenophobic'' is another word being used on this floor about
the President's character. Please advise how that is parliamentary
language.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would again remind all Members to
refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.

{time} 1715

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Phillips).
Mr. PHILLIPS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is long overdue in the U.S. and in my State of
Minnesota.
In Minnesota we are home to a thriving community of Liberian refugees
who fled two civil wars and an Ebola outbreak, refugees like my good
friend, Louise Stevens. She escaped civil war, left her life behind,
and slept on a friend's floor for over a year just for the chance at
the American Dream.
Now she is over 60. She has worked hard in Minnesota's healthcare
industry for 18 years. She is the mother of American children. She pays
taxes, and she is here legally under DED. But because of that DED
status, she still has no path to citizenship. The same is true for
thousands of Liberians in America.
I am so proud to help lead the Dream and Promise Act and finally, at
long last, change that. That is the American Dream and, at long last,
it should be our reality.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the
balance of my time.

[[Page H4288]]

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Espaillat).
Mr. ESPAILLAT. Mr. Speaker, today is a great day in our Nation as we
live up to our most noble and altruistic ideals.
Today, by passing the American Dream and Promise Act, we will again
reaffirm that we are still a Nation of immigrants.
Today, we follow a great tradition that goes back even before Ellis
Island, when hundreds of thousands of, mainly European, immigrants from
humble, poor beginnings reached our shores in an attempt to better
their lives. They made us a more perfect union, strengthening the
notion that we are still a nation of immigrants.
With H.R. 6, young people and others who are students, teachers,
nurses, caregivers, and members of our Armed Forces will be able to
fully embrace the potential and live the American Dream, reaffirming
that the United States of America is still a nation of immigrants.
No one but two of our colleagues can say otherwise. Whether from red
States or blue States, we all share an immigrant heritage in one way or
another. Some came by force, shackled to their destiny, while others
came fleeing violence, poverty, hunger, or in search of liberty and
religious freedom. So many came to our Nation, and we are still, Mr.
Speaker, a Nation of immigrants.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the
balance of my time.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my
colleague from California (Mrs. Torres).
Mrs. TORRES of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise also in strong support
of H.R. 6, the American Dream and Promise Act.
I recently met with a young Dreamer from my district who asked me a
simple question: Have you ever thought about doing something to change
someone else's life?
Passing the American Dream and Promise Act is that moment in history.
This is a historic day for the millions of hardworking young people
who, like me, were brought to the U.S. as children. And not just me,
but many other members of the new American caucus who are serving in
Congress today. They built lives here. They own businesses, homes, and
cars. Many have U.S. citizen children. They are not a national security
concern. These are our neighbors and our friends who have done
everything that they could possibly do to be on the right side of the
law and on the right side of our communities.
Immigrants make America great. I urge passage.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the
balance of my time.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Castro), the chair of the Congressional
Hispanic Caucus.
Mr. CASTRO of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Lofgren for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, the most powerful movements in American history, those
that have made the most change in our country, have often been started
by young people.
More than a dozen years ago, many young Dreamers took to the streets
of cities like Los Angeles, Dallas, Chicago, New York, and so many
other places throughout our country asking that they be recognized
fully as Americans. Many of these are folks who were brought here when
they were 6 months old, 5 years old, or 3 years old and have only known
the United States as their home country.
Today, the House of Representatives recognizes their Americanness and
takes a step forward to move them out of the legal limbo in which they
have found themselves and, unfortunately, in which they have lived
their lives. These are folks who are servicemembers, they are
teenagers, they are engineers, and they are workers in the fields. They
are people who are producing for our country, who are making this
Nation strong. They are people who we can be proud of. They are, like
us, Americans. And today, most of all, we give them something to
celebrate as we acknowledge their Americanness.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Speaker Pelosi for her hard work. This is the
second time, under her tenure as Speaker, that a Dream Act has passed.
I thank Lucille Roybal-Allard, Pramila Jayapal, and everybody on the
Judiciary Committee who has also done the hard work of shepherding this
bill through.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 6.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the
balance of my time.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Garcia).
Mr. GARCIA of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Nadler and
Chairwoman Lofgren for their leadership on this important bill. This
moment has been years in the making, thanks in no small part to the
advocates, the allies, and the young people who fought hard for their
right to stay in a country that they call and consider home.

Let me be clear, the American Dream and Promise Act is not perfect,
but there is a lot of good in it. This is a big step forward.
That is why I offered amendments to, first, prohibit juvenile
adjudications from being used to determine a public safety risk, and,
two, to eliminate all references to gang databases or presumed gang
affiliation from H.R. 6. It didn't make it, but it is still a great
compromise.
We cannot afford to turn our backs now. We must pass H.R. 6 today, a
significant precedent by the House of Representatives to create a
pathway to citizenship for millions.
Mr. Speaker, I thank everyone responsible for their contributions to
this piece of immigration reform.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the
balance of my time.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), my colleague, the Speaker of
the House.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren for
yielding and for her extraordinary leadership.
Congresswoman Lofgren has been an immigration lawyer. She has taught
immigration law, and she has served now as chair of the Subcommittee on
Immigration and Citizenship. She was masterful in bringing elements
together to make today possible. I commend our distinguished chairman,
Mr. Nadler, for his leadership, and Congresswoman Jayapal for making
this success possible.
But also, I commend Congresswoman Lucille Roybal-Allard. When we
passed this bill on the floor a long time ago, it was her legislation.
She is the godmother--they are young godmothers--she is the godmother
of this legislation. And I commend Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez, who
was the chair of the Hispanic Caucus when we passed the bill the first
time; Congresswoman Yvette Clarke, who has been a champion on this
issue; Congresswoman Judy Chu, the chair of her caucus; Congresswoman
Karen Bass of her caucus; and Congressman Joaquin Castro of the
Hispanic Caucus--inside maneuvering, but the outside mobilization is
what made today possible.
The stories of the Dreamers elevated this issue, their stories told
with such dignity and patriotism for our country, the mobilization that
they evoked from their stories for other people to take up their cause
and their case, because it is so important to America. And today, we
are not only honoring and rewarding our Dreamers, but we are also
addressing the temporary protected status and DED recipients so that
they feel much safer.
A year ago, I stood on the floor of this House--yes, in 4-inch heels,
for 8 hours, if you want any more statistics--and told many stories of
our Dreamers. I couldn't yield because then I would give up my time, so
I told the stories of Dreamers. These Dreamers are the constant
reinvigoration of America.
Dreamers such as Fernando, who lives in my district, came to the U.S.
when he was just 9 years old. He had an excellent education, which I
will submit for the Record. He now works at UCSF--that would be the
University of California, San Francisco--Helen Diller Family
Comprehensive Cancer Center, where he is working hard to provide new
insights into deadly diseases and disorders.

[[Page H4289]]

There are other stories to tell.
To our businesses and economy, Javier came from Mexico City when he
was 5 and now employs hundreds of Americans as CEO of an investment
firm.
To technology and innovation, Saba came from Pakistan and is now a
Ph.D. candidate studying cancer and other deadly genetic diseases.
And to our security, Andrea came from Peru and is hoping to follow in
her father's footsteps as a member of the Air Force.
The list goes on and on. My colleague from California, Mike
Thompson, is always bragging that, in California, 5,000 of our teachers
are DACA, are Dreamers. We want to give back to them.
The courage, patriotism, and determination to succeed of those young
people strengthens our Nation and they must be allowed to stay.
There is nothing partisan or political about protecting Dreamers and
TPS and DED recipients.
If the Dream Act had been brought to the floor in the last Congress
under the Republican majority and leadership, I do believe that it
would have passed under a Republican majority by strong, bipartisan
support.
Every President in recent memory--Democrat and Republican--has
understood the value of immigration to our Nation.

In his last speech as President of the United States, President
Ronald Reagan said he had an important message to communicate to the
country he loves, and he went on to say: ``Thanks to each wave of new
arrivals to this land of opportunity, we're a nation forever young,
forever bursting with energy and new ideas, and always on the cutting
edge, always leading the world to the next frontier. This quality is
vital to our future as a nation.''
President Reagan went on to say: ``If we ever closed the door to new
Americans, our leadership in the world would soon be lost.''
Today, our new Democratic House majority is advancing that leadership
in the world, in a bipartisan way, hopefully, with the American Dream
and Promise Act.
We are pleased that this legislation opens a door of opportunity to
TPS and DED recipients, who are American in every way: raising
families, starting businesses, contributing to our communities, and
fighting in our wars over decades.
Once we pass this bill--we want it to pass the Senate and be signed
by the President. We want it to be a bridge to understand why we need
comprehensive immigration reform for an immigration system that
embraces the contributions of our newcomers.
Protecting Dreamers and TPS and DED Americans is about honoring the
respect for family that is at the heart of our faith and at the heart
of who we are as Americans.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a strong, bipartisan vote to pass this
legislation, and to safeguard every person's right to pursue his or her
American Dream. And to my colleagues, today, on the floor of this
House, we have the opportunity to be part of history, to be on the
right side of history, but, more importantly, to be on the right side
of the future by voting and recognizing the value of Dreamers to that
future.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

{time} 1730

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much
time each side has remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia has 7\1/4\
minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from California has 9\1/2\
remaining.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of
time, and I appreciate the gentlewoman (Ms. Lofgren) and the ability to
close.
Mr. Speaker, there is a saying sometimes, and it is ``everything has
been said, just not everybody has said it.'' I think we sort of went
through that today.
But some of the things that have been said today need to be brought
out and, I think, continue to be brought out, and it may be that we
don't talk about them.
What we have found here is that, today, my colleagues clearly do not
care--as we have seen--about rule of law. They don't even seem to care
about the rules of the House today, and they had to actually waive the
paygo rules in order to bring this bill to the floor.
The estimate on this was $35 billion. They have waived that. They
said: We don't care. We have got a bill that is going nowhere, a bill
that is not going to be signed. So I guess, just to make our point, we
are just going to waive that.
But let's talk a little bit about some of the other stuff that is not
in this bill, that is not with DACA recipients, or DACA, or the
Dreamers--however, it is described today--that many of us would like to
have seen.
I think it was very telling when the majority leader came down here
and brought up a bill which I acknowledged was very close to coming
bipartisanly and passing last year, but didn't. If you wanted a
bipartisan bill, that is where you would have started, and you would
have had an opportunity to actually then put something with it with
security and actually get something passed.
But that was not what my friends across the aisle wanted. They
wanted, it seems to me, a political bill, a statement bill, something
that will not get passed but simply continue to use this population,
seemingly, in a way that furthers political goals and not a real
solution.
An interesting part of this bill which has not been talked about as
much--it has been mentioned, but it also needs to be recognized. We
have a serious issue with this temporary protected status, TPS. There
is no T anymore. T is not available in this. Temporary does exist.
When we talk about this--and it is supposed to be for those who are
in dire need. I agree with the concept of TPS, that it should be there
for those areas and times when we need to allow people to come in, and
that should be a part, and it should not be natural disasters and other
things. But I want you to think for just a second--and this was
actually brought out in Rules last night by my colleague from
California, whom I respect highly about this.
But understand, the TPS was granted to El Salvador in March 2001;
Haiti, 2010; Honduras, 1999--these were earthquakes, hurricanes--Nepal,
2015, an earthquake; Hurricane Mitch in 1999, with Nicaragua. Others
were armed conflicts, which we can understand.
But temporary after a hurricane, we are looking at 15, almost 20
years and we are still dealing with this, because all we did in this
body and all the administration did was simply kick the can down the
road.
I feel for those who came here on a temporary status but did not go
home, and then they got left. Yes, this has become their home because
we did not obey the law.
Now, there has been a lot said also about--and there is no need to
continue on it because there is the ability for criminal elements to
get green cards--the discussion about having the Secretary of Homeland
Security being able to take these up; and an individual, a nondelegable
authority, to actually take these individual items up is a farce. They
don't have that time or ability.
They will never get that far because, actually, amazingly, the
Department of Homeland Security Secretary is a busy person, both female
or male. Whoever serves in it, under Republican or Democrat, does not
have time to do this. So the very narrow exemption will never get used.
So, yes, it does open that possibility up.
But I think the interesting thing here is, it was shown by some of
the discussion in this debate, it was beyond the political rhetoric of
a bill that is going nowhere and a bill that should and could find
solutions.
It goes back to the problem that we see right now that this is,
frankly, another green light to those who want to come here seeking
freedom from the place that they currently are, which I sympathize
with. I understand. But either we have a way to get into our country
legally or we don't. Either we

[[Page H4290]]

have a way that you should come properly to our country or we don't.
It is not an in-between item here. It is not saying that we want you
to come but, yet, at the same point, don't worry about our rules and
laws if you can come.
As I said earlier in my statement today, they are borrowing, renting,
and begging for children to walk across the border because they know
that, once they do, they are free. Within 48 to 72 hours, they can get
to an NGO and be on a plane somewhere, even when we have found over
3,000 cases of fraudulent, unaccompanied minors and family units. But
we don't address that here.

In other words, we don't talk about what is happening in combination
with this, which many of us could have actually gotten on board with.
We simply put another green light, Mr. Speaker, on the fact that we are
not helping.
If either side, both Republicans or Democrats, could look at a Border
Patrol agent or an ICE agent or one who works in our immigration and
port authority and actually look at them and tell them while they are
doing their job upholding the law, which is all they can do--it is not
their job to make laws. That is this body's job: to make laws or to
help them or to send them aid.
Then how can we look them in the eye when they are staying 15 and 20
hours away from their families each day, when their own families are
falling apart, because we are overcrowding our Border Patrol offices
because they can't hide them?
How do we explain to those who come here properly on asylum from Cuba
and other places where they have been told, as one told me, looked at
me and said: ``If I was to go back to Cuba, they would disappear me,''
how can we sit there and look at them while they are held for 60 or 90
days or longer, while unaccompanied family members and unaccompanied
minors and family units are being passed over within 24 to 48 hours as
they are sitting there legitimately trying to get into this country
through an honest asylum claim?
But we sit them there to the side. We don't want to discuss them. We
want to make a political statement today.
So this will be a partisan vote. There will be some bipartisan vote.
There may be some who will vote for it, and that is okay. But at the
end of the day, we are not getting what we asked for. We are not
getting what we wanted. If we did, we probably would have taken the
bill from last Congress. They did have bipartisan votes, what the
majority leader spoke of. But that is not what we did.
Until we get serious about this issue, until we get serious about
wanting to fix this and not simply use debate time to bash the
administration or the President and to find solutions here, then we
will continue down this path.
And you can celebrate if you pass this--which you will because the
majority has the numbers--but how hollow a celebration is something
when you look and say: This will not do anything because this will not
become law.
The powerful symbol spoken of by one of my colleagues earlier is
this. The powerful symbol is not that you can pass a bill on the floor
that has nothing of support from either side or actually has the hope
of becoming law, or giving false hope to anyone who is watching today,
what actually has the ability to do is that why would we do this if we
are not dealing with the issues that we have as we go forward? Why
would we take the flaws in this bill, bringing it to the floor in a
closed rule?
Why? Because I believe the majority didn't want to have to deal with
the honest problems in this bill with amendments, so they closed the
rule. They didn't want it to happen.
Mr. Speaker, but as this is our time, this our place, I would urge a
``no'' vote on this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct a couple of things that have
been said in the course of this debate.
Unfortunately, there are those in our country who try and claim that
immigrants are criminals, and that is really incorrect. But for those
who have said that this bill was loose for people who have committed
serious crimes, it is simply not the case. We have tough restrictions
in this bill.
Under the bill, an applicant is disqualified if any one of the
following apply:
There is reason to believe the applicant is a national security risk;
The applicant has a felony conviction of any kind other than
immigration status related;
The applicant has a single misdemeanor conviction involving moral
turpitude with a sentence of more than 6 months, whether or not that
has been served;
An applicant has two misdemeanors involving moral turpitude,
regardless of sentence;
An applicant has more than two misdemeanors of any kind, excluding
offenses that should not bar anyone, like minor traffic offenses; and
The applicant has a single misdemeanor conviction for domestic
violence.
A lot has been said, I think, incorrectly, about the provision in the
bill that says the Secretary's authority to deny applicants who pose a
threat to public safety--and that is our failsafe in this--the
Secretary can deny an applicant if he determines, or she, that the
applicant poses a current threat to public safety, that somehow that is
unworkable. But that is not true.
Let's be clear. Members of Congress are the only ones who can
introduce bills and sign letters. But do we do every single aspect of
that? Of course not. We have staff who assist us.
That is how that would work in the Department of Homeland Security.
The staff would help, and they would prepare something for the
Secretary, who would not be able to delegate it. And this is how it has
worked in the Immigration and Nationality Act before.
I draw your attention to INA's 236(a), which is the mandatory
detention of suspected terrorists at habeas corpus and judicial review.
This section provides that this decision cannot be delegated, and yet
it is workable because a lot of the staff work is done to present to
the Secretary who, himself, must make that decision; similarly, with
public law 110-301, the Libyan Claims Resolution Act, and 8 U.S.C. 1522
that provides nondelegable activities.

Now, there has been discussion that somehow the language that we have
in the bill about databases means you can't use that evidence. That is
simply incorrect.
Mr. Speaker, if we had wanted to prevent the Department of Homeland
Security from using or referring to gang databases, we would have said
so. The bill would clearly state that DHS could not use, rely on, or
refer to gang databases. That is not what the bill says.
The bill says ``it shall not establish disqualifying gang
participation.'' It can be evidence, but it can't be the establishment
of that fact.
Now, why would that be the case? We value our law enforcement
community. They keep us safe. They are hardworking. But these databases
are populated by people way beyond law enforcement, people in school
police, school security. They can result in people being mistakenly
tagged as gang members when they are not.
I will give an example.
There was an audit done of California's gang database, CalGang. When
the auditors went through, they found out there were 42 individuals who
were under the age of 1 year old who had allegedly self-reported that
they were part of a gang. Obviously, that was incorrect. So we would
not want to make that the determining factor.
I want to mention a little bit about the comments that were made
about DUI. DUI is a very serious matter, and no one wants to see
individuals who are threats to public safety obtain relief under this
bill.
First, anyone who is convicted by an offense punishable by a maximum
term of imprisonment of more than 1 year is barred from relief. So
anyone who would commit a serious offense is barred.
If you have one conviction for DUI with a suspended license and you
knew your license was suspended, you have committed a crime of moral
turpitude, because section 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act
still applies.
Some have said that a single DUI conviction should be enough to
disqualify you. Well, we have provided for that as well. If the
Secretary finds that you pose a serious public safety threat, he can
deny your application.

[[Page H4291]]

I will just say this. There are Members of the House of
Representatives who have a single DUI. We didn't exile them from a
single DUI, and I don't think if someone has turned their life around,
we should exile them as well.
Now, I want to talk about the value of this bill.
It is interesting to hear the bill has been jammed, because we have
waited for 18 years for this moment to pass this bill.

{time} 1745

Mr. Speaker, over 400 diverse organizations, associations, and
industry leaders support this bill, including United We Dream, NAACP,
National Organization for Women, Interfaith Immigration Coalition,
United States Chamber of Commerce, and National Education Association.
Yesterday, more than 100 business leaders, including Walmart, Koch
Industries, Coca-Cola, Starbucks, and General Motors all came out in
support of this bill. They had full-page ads in The New York Times,
asking us to please pass this bill.
H.R. 6 is the solution we have been waiting for. Passage of this
measure is long overdue. Dreamers and TPS and DED recipients do not
have the luxury of time. President Trump terminated DACA. He terminated
TPS for six countries. He extended DED only through March 2020.
While the courts have stopped the President on DACA and TPS, these
individuals are living on borrowed time.
We can vote on their futures now. To a great extent, we are deciding
their fates, and we are also deciding our fates. Are we the America
that made us great, who opened our doors to those who wanted to become
Americans with us, who understood that those who have done no wrong
should not receive punishment? I say that we are.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in support of the American
Dream and Promise Act of 2019, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, the treatment of the Dreamers, brought to
this country by their parents and others with unsettled status, is un-
American and must be set right by the rational process outlined by H.R.
6, the American Dream and Promise Act of 2019. The Dreamers have come
to symbolize the entire group of individuals who have been left in the
shadows, where they experience the fear of the hunted. The Dreamers
have lived among us for almost their entire lives. I have invited
Dreamers who live in the District of Columbia to a public meeting to
talk about their lives. They are fulfilling their own dreams going to
college and working in good jobs.
The shame of our failure to permanently settle the Dreamers question
will not go away as long as we leave them and others living without
settled legal status twisting in the wind. H.R. 6 does not pretend to
settle this issue. Rather, it establishes a path to citizenship not
only for Dreamers but also for Temporary Protected Status and Deferred
Enforced Departure holders.
Never before in American history have we left any group of people in
our country in legal limbo. H.R. 6 presents the ordered and predictable
process this issue has long needed. These issues and these people will
not go away. The House has an obligation to use our new majority to set
this issue on the path to resolution.
Ms. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the
American Dream and Promise Act. For too long, Congress has failed to
take action in providing certainty to members in our community whose
immigration status has been thrown into question because of the actions
of this erratic administration. With the passage of this important and
substantial piece of legislation, we will be sending a clear message to
these individuals that they are valued members of our communities.
This bill provides certainty to the roughly 14,600 DREAMers in my
district, including people like Juan Carlos Cerda. Juan Carlos came to
the United States at the age of 7 with his mother from Mexico. Juan
Carlos didn't understand completely what was going on at the time--all
he knew was that he and his mother were leaving Mexico to join his
father in the United States. Juan Carlos worked hard through school and
eventually earned a B.A. at Yale University. He returned to North Texas
as a kindergarten teacher in the Pleasant Grove neighborhood in my
district to contribute back to the community that gave him so much.
Because of the uncertainty surrounding the Deferred Action for
Childhood Arrivals program and the Trump Administration, Mr. Cerda's
work authorization had a cloud of uncertainty. This bill would lift
that cloud and allow people like Mr. Cerda to centime to be
contributing members in our diverse communities.
Furthermore, roughly 2,400 individuals under Temporary Protected
Status and Deferred Enforced Departure within my district will also be
protected under this legislation. These individuals were granted refuge
in the United States while their home countries dealt with issues such
as natural disasters or civil unrest. These individuals have been in
the United States for an average of 22 years and have already set down
roots within my district. We know them as small business owners,
educators, community leaders, and friends. These individuals along with
DREAMers are Americans, just like myself, the only difference is what
is written on a piece of paper.
Overall, up to 2.5 million people who have spent most of their lives
in the United States will have a door of opportunity opened so that
they too can fulfill their vision of the American dream. These
individuals make our country stronger and make valuable contributions
to it every day. As a cosponsor of this bill, I urge my colleagues to
support this legislation and for the Senate to take it up immediately
upon passage in this chamber.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Espaillat). All time for debate has
expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 415, the previous question is ordered on
the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further
consideration of H.R. 6 is postponed.

____________________